GOOD WITHOUT GOD

prologue

Click √ on Images @ LEFT for full original texts
Click √ HERE to skip prolgue, go directly to news

Atheism
The New York Times: April 27, 2009

Polls show that the ranks of atheists in the United States may be increasing. The American Religious Identification Survey, a major study released in March 2009, found that those who claimed "no religion" were the only demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years.
Nationally, the "nones" in the population nearly doubled, to 15 percent in 2008 from 8 percent in 1990. In South Carolina, they more than tripled, to 10 percent from 3 percent. (Not all the "nones" are necessarily committed atheists or agnostics.)

Local and national atheist organizations have flourished in recent years, fed by outrage over the Bush administration's embrace of the religious right. A spate of best-selling books on atheism - including "God Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens, "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris - have also popularized the notion that nonbelief is not just an argument but a cause.

 

HARK,THE NEWS IS ~
HOTTER THAN HELL

Click √ on Images @ LEFT for full original texts

ARCHDIOCESE
of
PHILADELPHIA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Monsignor Goes on Trial
EDITORIAL
The New York Times: April 1, 2012

A long overdue step of accountability in the sex abuse of children by wayward Catholic priests — the first-ever trial of a diocesan supervisor for allegedly covering up the scandal — has opened in Philadelphia. The issue of hierarchal responsibility is finally front and center.

Msgr. William Lynn (left), the supervisor of Philadelphia priests for 12 years, is defending himself from criminal conspiracy charges by alleging that culpability for the scandal extended to the head of the archdiocese — via a secret archive he compiled on predator priests that he said was ordered shredded in 1994 by Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua (right).

Whether the jury believes Monsignor Lynn’s contention that he innocently did his duty by compiling the archive and handing it on to his superiors is an open question. But its value in shedding light on backroom maneuvering is already clear. A copy was found in a diocesan safe six years ago and turned over to authorities this year as criminal investigators looked into years of alleged rapes and other abuses of schoolchildren. Cardinal Bevilacqua was expected to testify but died earlier this year.

The trial is recapitulating painful aspects of the nationwide scandal in which more than 700 priests had to be dismissed in a three-year period while the church’s upper echelons faced no criminal charges. The trial unfolds eight years after a review panel of laity appointed by the nation’s bishops urgently warned that to repair the church’s reputation “there must be consequences” for ranking church officials who engineered cover-ups.

In the courtroom, a series of priests have testified for the prosecution in obvious discomfort, telling of rogue colleagues merely being moved among parishes by the diocese to avoid public scandal. One told of how the diocese tried to treat pedophile priests like alcoholics with “Sexaholics Anonymous” programs.

Cardinal Justin Rigali (right) has suspended two dozen priests since a grand jury severely criticized him and reported that dozens of credibly accused priests still remained in ministry despite a proclaimed “zero tolerance” policy. Cardinal Rigali has insisted the diocese was aggressive in rooting out bad priests.

Catholic parishioners deserve the fullest possible accounting of the scandalous abuse of their children. The trial of Monsignor Lynn is a step in the right direction.

(Full text)

FRANK BRUNI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rethinking His Religion
By FRANK BRUNI, OP-ED COLUMNIST
The New York Times: March 24, 2012

I MOVED into my freshman-year dorm at the University of North Carolina after many of the other men on the hall. One had already begun decorating. I spotted the poster above his desk right away. It showed a loaf of bread and a chalice of red wine, with these words: “Jesus invites you to a banquet in his honor.”

This man attended Catholic services every Sunday in a jacket and tie, feeling that church deserved such respect. I kept a certain distance from him. I’d arrived at college determined to be honest about my sexual orientation and steer clear of people who might make that uncomfortable or worse. I figured him for one of them.

About two years ago, out of nowhere, he found me. His life, he wanted me to know, had taken interesting turns. He’d gone into medicine, just as he’d always planned. He’d married and had kids. But he’d also strayed from his onetime script. As a doctor, he has spent a part of his time providing abortions.

I’m struck more than anything else by how much searching and asking and reflecting he’s done, this man I’d so quickly discounted, who pledged a fraternity when he was still on my radar and then, when he wasn’t, quit in protest over how it had blackballed a Korean pledge candidate and a gay one.

Because we never really talked after freshman year, I didn’t know that, nor did I know that after graduation he ventured to a desperately poor part of Africa to teach for a year. College, he recently told me, had not only given him a glimpse of how large the world was but also shamed him about how little of it he knew.

In his 30s he read all 11 volumes of “The Story of Civilization,” then tackled Erasmus, whose mention in those books intrigued him. When he told me this I was floored: I knew him freshman year as a gym rat more than a bookworm and extrapolated his personality and future from there.

During our recent correspondence, he said he was sorry for any impression he might have given me in college that he wasn’t open to the candid discussions we have now. I corrected him: I owed the apology — for misjudging him.

He grew up in the South, in a setting so homogenous and a family so untroubled that, he said, he had no cause to question his parents’ religious convictions, which became his. He said that college gave him cause, starting with me. Sometime during freshman year, he figured out that I was gay, and yet I didn’t conform to his prior belief that homosexuals were “deserving of pity for their mental illness.” I seemed to him sane and sound.

Questioning his church’s position on homosexuality made him question more. He read the Bible “front to back and took notes of everything I liked and didn’t like,” he said.

He also read books on church history and, he said, “was appalled at the behavior of the church while it presumed to teach all of us moral behavior.” How often had it pushed back at important science? Vilified important thinkers?

Even so, he added to his teaching duties in Africa a weekly, extracurricular Bible study for the schoolchildren. But the miseries he witnessed made him second-guess the point of that, partly because they made him second-guess any god who permitted them.

He saw cruelties born of the kind of bigotry that religion and false righteousness sometimes abet. A teenage girl he met was dying of sepsis from a female circumcision performed with a kitchen knife. He asked the male medical worker attending to her why such crude mutilation was condoned, and was told that women otherwise were overly sexual and “prone to prostitution.”

“Isn’t it just possible,” he pushed back, “that women are prone to poverty, and men are prone to prostitution?”

He has thought a lot about how customs, laws and religion do and don’t jibe with women’s actions and autonomy.

“In all centuries, through all history, women have ended pregnancies somehow,” he said. “They feel so strongly about this that they will attempt abortion even when it’s illegal, unsafe and often lethal.”

He had researched and reflected on much of this by the time he graduated from medical school, and so he decided to devote a bit of each week to helping out in an abortion clinic. Over years to come, in various settings, he continued this work, often braving protesters, sometimes wearing a bulletproof vest.

He knew George Tiller (left), the Kansas abortion provider shot dead in 2009 by an abortion foe.

That happened in a church, he noted. He hasn’t belonged to one since college. “Religion too often demands belief in physical absurdities and anachronistic traditions despite all scientific evidence and moral progress,” he said.

And in too many religious people he sees inconsistencies. They speak of life’s preciousness when railing against abortion but fail to acknowledge how they let other values override that concern when they support war, the death penalty or governments that do nothing for people in perilous need.

He has not raised his young children in any church, or told them that God exists, because he no longer believes that. But he wants them to have the community-minded values and altruism that he indeed credits many religions with fostering. He wants them to be soulful, philosophical.

So he rounded up favorite quotations from Emerson, Thoreau, Confucius, Siddhartha, Gandhi, Marcus Aurelius, Martin Luther King and more. From the New Testament, too. He put each on a strip of paper, then filled a salad bowl with the strips. At dinner he asks his kids to fish one out so they can discuss it.

He takes his kids outside to gaze at stars, which speak to the wonder of creation and the humility he wants them to feel about their place in it.

He’s big on humility, asking, who are we to go to the barricades for human embryos and then treat animals and their habitats with such contempt? Or to make such unforgiving judgments about people who err, including women who get pregnant without meaning to, unequipped for the awesome responsibility of a child?
As a physician, he said, you’re privy to patients’ secrets — to their truths — and understand that few people live p to their own stated ideals. He has treated a philandering pastor, a drug-abusing financier. “I see life as it really is,” he told me, “not how we wish it were.”

He shared a story about one of the loudest abortion foes he ever encountered, a woman who stood year in and year out on a ladder, so that her head would be above other protesters’ as she shouted “murderer” at him and other doctors and “whore” at every woman who walked into the clinic.

One day she was missing. “I thought, ‘I hope she’s O.K.,’ ” he recalled. He walked into an examining room to find her there. She needed an abortion and had come to him because, she explained, he was a familiar face. After the procedure, she assured him she wasn’t like all those other women: loose, unprincipled.

She told him: “I don’t have the money for a baby right now. And my relationship isn’t where it should be.”

“Nothing like life,” he responded, “to teach you a little more.”

A week later, she was back on her ladder.

GENERAL JOHN STARK
"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."

 

 

 

 

 

 

HENRIETTE SASSON

French horror hits home here
Jersey kin’s torment
By DAN MACLEOD
Post Wire Services: March 21, 2012

The senseless slaughter of three young children and a rabbi at a Jewish school in France has the victims’ stunned relative in New Jersey questioning her faith.

“It makes me revolt against God for what happened,” said Henriette Sasson, 63, from her Saddle River home.

“I’m a believer, but after seeing this, I ask myself, ‘Is there a God that can let these things happen to innocent kids?’”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Billboards saying God is “a myth” to go up in Jewish and Muslim communities 
Atheist group funding the billboards wants to reach out to closeted atheists in religious communities
BY BRADEN GOYETTE
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: March 3, 2012,

An atheist group is putting up signs that say God is "a myth" -- and they're making sure that Jews and Muslims will see them.

American Atheists announced on their website that two signs, one in Hebrew and one in Arabic, will go up in Brooklyn and Paterson, New Jersey, this Monday.

The Hebrew sign will go up near the Williamsburg Bridge, where there is a large orthodox Jewish community, CNN reported. The other, written in Arabic and English, will go up just a few blocks from a Paterson mosque, the Islamic Center of Passaic County.

The signs feature each faith's word for God in large lettering next to the message "You know it's a myth... and you have a choice."

American Atheists says on their website that the signs aren't intended to offend, but are meant as outreach to atheists in those communities who may "feel particularly alone." They're also supposed to get the word out about the "Reason Rally" the group is holding on Mar. 24 in Washington, D.C.

Mohamed Elfilali, executive director of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, was not particularly troubled by news of the billboards. "It is not the first and won’t be the last time people have said things about God or religion,” he told CNN. “I respect people’s opinion about God; obviously they are entitled to it. I don’t think God is a myth, but that doesn’t exclude people to have a different opinion.”

The billboards will be up for a month and cost less than $15,000 each, American Atheists president Dave Silverman told CNN.

The group plans to put up similar signs in California and New York's Chinatown, NorthJersey.com reported.

This isn’t the first time American Atheists have put up anti-religion billboards in the New York area. In Nov. 2010, the group sponsored a Christmas-themed billboard near the Lincoln Tunnel, with the words "You KNOW it's a myth. This season, celebrate REASON!"

 

Published Commentary American Atheists Plans Billboards for Brooklyn, Paterson March 4, 2012 Billboards Promoting Atheism Causing Stir In New York And New Jersey March 5, 2012 ROBERT COANE a.k.a. Rodin SCOTT SAVAGE American Atheists, Alabama

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mayor to Give $250,000 to Planned Parenthood
By MICHAEL PAULSON and KATE TAYLOR
The New York Times: February 2, 2012

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, responding to the controversy over a breast cancer advocacy group that cut off most of its grants to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening, said Thursday that he would make up a large part of the missing money.

Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire with a long-term interest in public health, said he would give Planned Parenthood Federation of America a $250,000 matching gift — he will donate $1 for every new dollar Planned Parenthood raises up to $250,000.

“Politics have no place in health care,”
he said in a statement. “Breast cancer screening saves lives and hundreds of thousands of women rely on Planned Parenthood for access to care. We should be helping women access that care, not placing barriers in their way.”

Mr. Bloomberg then highlighted his contribution on Twitter, posting a series of messages asking his followers to contribute to Planned Parenthood.

The controversy erupted this week when the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation said it would not renew most of the grants it had been making to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening. The Komen foundation had been giving about $700,000 a year to Planned Parenthood.

A Komen board member said on Wednesday that the decision to cut off the contributions was made because of the fear that an investigation of Planned Parenthood by Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida (right), would damage Komen’s credibility with donors.

Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, issued a statement saying, “On behalf of hundreds of thousands of women nationwide who rely on Planned Parenthood for breast cancer education and screening, we are enormously grateful to Mayor Bloomberg. This contribution will help ensure that politics don’t interfere with women having access to health care. People all across the country have stepped forward in the last 48 hours to offer help and support, and the mayor’s donation will help ensure that no woman is denied breast cancer services because of right-wing political pressure campaigns.”

Mr. Bloomberg has been a longtime supporter of both the Komen foundation and Planned Parenthood. According to his office, he has given $555,000 to Planned Parenthood over the years. And he has given $200,000 to the Komen foundation, much of it in the form of matching grants to Bloomberg L.P. employees who have run in the foundation’s fund-raising road races.

(Full text)

A Painful Betrayal
EDITORIAL
The New York Times: February 2, 2012

With its roster of corporate sponsors and the pink ribbons that lend a halo to almost any kind of product you can think of, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation has a longstanding reputation as a staunch protector of women’s health. That reputation suffered a grievous, perhaps mortal, wound this week from the news that Komen, the world’s largest breast cancer organization, decided to betray that mission. It threw itself into the middle of one of America’s nastiest political battles, on the side of hard-right forces working to demonize Planned Parenthood and undermine women’s health and freedom.

The Associated Press reported on Tuesday that the foundation is cutting off its financing of breast cancer screening and education programs run by Planned Parenthood affiliates. That means nearly $700,000 less for Planned Parenthood, which performed 750,000 such screenings last year, many thousands of them with money from the Komen foundation.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York pledged to match up to $250,000 for Planned Parenthood, a generous move, although it addresses only one year’s financing. There was also an outpouring of support from small donors.

In addition to harming women, the foundation has also tarnished, perhaps permanently, its brand, symbolized by the pink ribbon that adorns yogurt cups and running shoes and tote bags and Federal Premium Ammunition’s pink shotgun shells. Companies like Ford Motor, Dell and Yoplait may not find the same value in identifying themselves with the foundation after its sharp departure from political neutrality.

To try to justify its move, the foundation cited a new policy against making grants to groups under federal or state investigation — in Planned Parenthood’s case, an inquiry into how it spends its taxpayer money by Representative Cliff Stearns, a Republican of Florida. That is just a flimsy fig leaf.

Mr. Stearns’s “investigation” is nothing more than a political witch hunt, stirred up by Republican leaders and by a right-wing antichoice group, Americans United for Life, which now displays the pink ribbon on its Web site as part of a fund-raising campaign for Komen. The inquiry is part of the Republican campaign to stigmatize Planned Parenthood and end financial support for its invaluable network of clinics. Abortions make up only about 3 percent of its work, but most of this crowd also objects to its leading role in providing access to contraceptives.

The Komen foundation should be speaking out against this abuse of Congressional power. At the least, the foundation’s leaders should have the decency and good sense not to do or say anything that even implies an endorsement.

It’s not clear whether this move reflects the political agenda of Komen’s leadership, including its new senior vice president for public policy, Karen Handel, who called for defunding Planned Parenthood during her failed gubernatorial campaign in Georgia in 2010. Perhaps the foundation just caved in to bullying by politicians, although it is not clear why it would have unless it was sympathetic to their cause. Either way, the result is the same: negative fallout for women’s health.

(Full text)

Published Commentary @ RKimIndiana Feb. 3, 2012 "Susan B. Anthony and Mary Wollstonecraft, two heroic women who have done much to fight for equality, were also against abortion." Regarding Susan B. Anthony's abortion beliefs, Anthony scholar Ann D. Gordon and Anthony biographer Lynn Sherr argue that Anthony "spent no time on the politics of abortion." * Just one more false, mendacious claim by the religious right (a.k.a. social conservatives) trying to Shanghai and twist history to their political advantage. Those not interested in fact-checking, parrot. * Gordon, Ann D.; Sherr, Lynn (May 21, 2010). "Sarah Palin is no Susan B. Anthony". WashingtonPost.com, "On Faith" blog. Retrieved October 22, 2010. ROBERT COANE, Feb. 3, 2012

 

LOUISE M.ANTONY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good Minus God
By LOUISE M. ANTONY
THE NEW YORK TIMES: December 18, 2011

We “moralistic atheists” do not see right and wrong as artifacts of a divine protection racket.  Rather, we find moral value to be immanent in the natural world, arising from the vulnerabilities of sentient beings and from the capacities of rational beings to recognize and to respond to those vulnerabilities and capacities in others.

It is only if morality is independent of God that we can make moral sense out of religious worship.  It is only if morality is independent of God that any person can have a moral basis for adhering to God’s commands.

Think now about our personal relations — how we love our parents, our children, our life partners, our friends.  To say that the moral worth of these individuals depends on the existence of God is to say that these people are, in themselves, worth nothing — that the concern we feel for their well being has no more ethical significance than the concern some people feel for their boats or their cars.  It is to say that the historical connections we value, the traits of character and personality that we love — all count for nothing in themselves.  Other people warrant our concern only because they are valued by someone else — in this case, God.  (Imagine telling a child: “You are not inherently lovable.  I love you only because I love your father, and it is my duty to love anything he loves.”)

What could make anyone think such things?  Ironically, I think the answer is: the same picture of morality that lies behind atheistic nihilism.  It’s the view that the only kind of “obligation” there could possibly be is the kind that is disciplined by promise of reward or threat of punishment.  Such a view cannot find or comprehend any value inherent in the nature of things, value that could warrant particular attitudes and behavior on the part of anyone who can apprehend it.

Divine Command Theory insists both that there is such a thing as moral goodness, and that it is defined by what God commands. This makes for really appalling consequences, from an intuitive, moral point of view. Divine Command Theory entails that anything at all could be “good” or “right” or “wrong.” If God were to command you to eat your children, then it would be “right” to eat your children.

God is extremely powerful, and so can make us suffer if we disobey Him, but the same can be said of tyrants, and we have no moral obligation (speaking now in ordinary terms) to obey tyrants.  (We might even have a moral obligation to disobey tyrants.)  The same goes for worshipping God.  We might find it in our interest to flatter or placate such a powerful person, but there could be no way in which God was deserving of praise or tribute.

If “good” is to have normative force, it must be something that we can understand independently of what is commanded by a powerful omnipresent being.

You do not lose morality by giving up God; neither do you necessarily find it by finding Him.

I want to close by conceding that there are things one loses in giving up God, and they are not insignificant.  Most importantly, you lose the guarantee of redemption.  Suppose that you do something morally terrible, something for which you cannot make amends, something, perhaps, for which no human being could ever be expected to forgive you.  I imagine that the promise made by many religions, that God will forgive you if you are truly sorry, is a thought would that bring enormous comfort and relief.  You cannot have that if you are an atheist.  In consequence, you must live your life, and make your choices with the knowledge that every choice you make contributes, in one way or another, to the only value your life can have.

Some people think that if atheism were true, human choices would be insignificant.  I think just the opposite — they would become surpassingly important.

ILLUSTRATION PAINTINGS
Francisco de Goya y Lucientes: Saturn Devours His Children	Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio: Sacrifice of Isaac

(Full text)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi Voters Reject Anti-Abortion Measure
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
The New York Times: November 8, 2011

Voters turned a skeptical eye toward conservative-backed measures across the country Tuesday, rejecting an anti-labor law in Ohio, an anti-abortion measure in Mississippi and a crackdown on voting rights in Maine.

[Voters]in Mississippi, one of the most conservative states, turned away a measure that would have outlawed all abortions and many forms of contraception and had drawn conservative support from members of both parties.

...in Iowa, Republicans failed in their attempt to win control of the State Senate. Had they won a special election there, they would have likely been able to pass numerous measures, including a ban on same-sex marriage, that had been blocked by Democrats.

In one of the biggest surprises of the night was Mississippi’s rejection of a far-reaching and stringent anti-abortion initiative known as the “personhood” amendment, which had inspired a ferocious national debate.

Initiative 26 would have amended the state Constitution to define life “to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”

Supporters, including evangelical Christians, said it would have stopped the murder of innocent life and sent a clarion moral call to the world. They said they expected that passage in Mississippi would have built support for similar laws in other states.

Opponents, led by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, said the proposal would have outlawed all abortions, including in cases of rape and incest and when the mother’s life was in danger; would have barred morning-after pills and certain contraception such as IUD’s; and could have limited in vitro fertility procedures.

“The message from Mississippi is clear,” Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a statement. “An amendment that allows politicians to further interfere in our personal, private medical decisions, including a woman’s right to choose safe, legal abortion, is unacceptable.”

The push for a personhood amendment split the country’s anti-abortion movement. Traditional leaders including the Roman Catholic bishops and National Right to Life opposed it on strategic grounds, fearing it would lead to a United States Supreme Court defeat and set back to their efforts to chip away at abortion rights.

Governor Barbour is a strong opponent of abortion rights but expressed skepticism about the amendment’s wording.

“It’s unnecessarily ambiguous,” he told MSNBC on Tuesday. He also criticized the strategy of sending it to voters rather than to the Legislature — a blunder he attributed to people in Colorado, who wrote the measure — and said it would not be a good test case with which to try to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. Nonetheless, Mr. Barbour said, he had supported the measure because he believes that life begins at conception.

 

Back to Common Sense at the Polls
EDITORIAL
Published: November 9, 2011

But, even the voters in that state, one of the country’s most conservative, decisively rejected an amendment to ban abortion by declaring a fertilized egg as a person. The measure also would have effectively banned some forms of contraception and even in-vitro fertilization, and 58 percent of voters said that was going too far.

Wait! Don’t Tell Me!
By GAIL COLLINS, OP-ED COLUMNIST
The New York Times: November 9, 2011

And, in Mississippi, voters resoundingly rejected an anti-abortion amendment that would have made every fertilized egg a person.

Things have gone so far that Mississippi has to pull us back.

The personhood proposal didn’t come up during the debate. The pack-trailing Jon Huntsman has been the only Republican candidate who’s said he thought it went too far. In a Fox interview, Romney danced around the edges. When asked, “Would you have supported the constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?” Mitt said: “Absolutely.”

The Netherlands: New System to Compensate Abuse Victims
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS : November 7, 2011

The Dutch branch of the Roman Catholic Church will start a compensation system that clears the way for victims of abuse by priests and other church workers to receive payments of up to $138,000, the church announced Monday. The country’s Bishops’ Conference and Conference of Religious Orders said the system would probably take effect next month. Thousands of cases of allegations of sexual abuse by Dutch priests are under investigation by an independent, church-financed commission.

(Full text)

Catholic Paper Apologizes for Homosexuality Column
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Thed New York Times: November 3, 2011

The official newspaper of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Boston has apologized for a column that said that homosexuality is caused by Satan. The column’s author, Daniel Avila, is a lawyer and policy adviser at the Catholic bishops’ conference in Washington, where he works in the office that opposes the spread of same-sex marriage. Mr. Avila wrote, “The scientific evidence of how same-sex attraction most likely may be created provides a credible basis for a spiritual explanation that indicts the devil.” The church’s Boston newspaper, The Pilot, apologized for “having failed to recognize the theological error in the column before publication,” and it deleted the column from its Web site. A spokeswoman for the bishops’ conference said that Mr. Avila’s column was not approved by the bishops, and that the church does not have a definitive theory on the origins of same-sex attraction.

(Full text)

Illustration above right: Gustave Doré from PARADISE LOST,1866

Ireland Will Close Embassy to Vatican
By DOUGLAS DALBY
The New York Times: November 3, 2011

The government said Thursday that it would close its embassy to the Vatican, but Deputy Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore (right) said the decision was made on “purely economic grounds” and not as a result of a rift with the Holy See over the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse. Mr. Gilmore said “recent controversies” had no bearing on the decision, citing the government’s need to reduce expenses under the terms of a European Union bailout package. The government is also closing embassies in East Timor and Iran, he said. The Vatican withdrew its ambassador to Ireland in July after an Irish government report said the Vatican had discouraged bishops from reporting cases of sexual abuse to the police, a charge the Vatican rejects. The Vatican said Thursday that every state was “free to decide” whether or not to have an envoy in Rome, but what counts are diplomatic relations, “and these are not in question with regards to Ireland.”

(Full text)

ARCHDIOCESE
of
KANSAS CITY
ST. JOSEPH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bishop Indicted; Charge Is Failing to Report Abuse
By A. G. SULZBERGER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN
The New York Times: October 14, 2011

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A bishop in the Roman Catholic Church has been indicted for failure to report suspected child abuse, the first time in the 25-year history of the church’s sex abuse scandals that the leader of an American diocese has been held criminally liable for the behavior of a priest he supervised.

The indictment of the bishop, Robert W. Finn (left), and the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph by a county grand jury was announced on Friday. Each was charged with one misdemeanor count involving a priest accused of taking pornographic photographs of girls as recently as this year. They pleaded not guilty.

The case caused an uproar among Catholics in Kansas City this year when Bishop Finn acknowledged that he knew of the photographs last December but did not turn them over to the police until May. During that time, the priest, the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, is said to have continued to attend church events with children, and took lewd photographs of another young girl.

A decade ago the American bishops pledged to report suspected abusers to law enforcement authorities — a policy also recommended last year by the Vatican. Bishop Finn himself had made such a promise three years ago as part of a $10 million legal settlement with abuse victims in Kansas City.

Though the charge is only a misdemeanor, victims’ advocates immediately hailed the indictment as a breakthrough, saying that until now American bishops have avoided prosecution despite documents showing that in some cases they were aware of abuse.

“This is huge for us,” said Michael Hunter, director of the Kansas City chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, and a victim of sexual abuse by a priest. “It’s something that I personally have been waiting for years to see, some real accountability. We’re very pleased with the prosecuting attorney here to have the guts to do it.”

The bishop signaled he would fight the charges with all his strength. He said in a statement: “We will meet these announcements with a steady resolve and a vigorous defense."

The indictment announced on Friday by the Jackson County prosecutor, Jean Peters Baker (right), had been under seal since Oct. 6 because the bishop was out of the country. He returned on Thursday night.

In a news conference, Ms. Baker said the case was not religiously motivated, but was about the obligation under state law to report child abuse.

“This is about protecting children,” she said.

ARCHDIOCESE
of
KANSAS CITY
ST. JOSEPH
Accountability in Missouri
EDITORIAL
The New York Times: October 20, 2011

It has been seven years since the Roman Catholic Church’s investigative board of laity warned that, beyond the 700 priests dismissed for sexually abusing children, “there must be consequences” for the diocesan leaders who recycled criminal priests through unsuspecting parishes. American church authorities have done nothing to heed this caution.

Now state prosecutors in Missouri have shown the courage the prelates lacked.

They indicted Bishop Robert Finn (below right) of the Diocese of Kansas City - St. Joseph for allegedly failing to notify criminal authorities about a popular parish priest who is accused of taking pornographic photographs of young parochial schoolgirls — despite community alarms and evidence submitted to the diocese.
Bishop Finn, who professed his innocence under the indictment, had previously outraged church faithful by acknowledging that he knew of the photos last December but did not turn them over to the police until May.

This occurred despite the requirements of state law — and the bishop’s own policy vows — that suspected crimes against children be immediately reported. The priest, the Rev. Shawn Ratigan (left), continued to attend church events and allegedly abuse children until he was indicted this year on 13 counts of child pornography.

Bishop Finn is only the first ranking prelate in the nationwide scandal to be held criminally liable for the serial misbehavior of a priest in his diocese. Investigations have shown that many more diocesan officials across the country worked assiduously to bury the scandal from public view over the years, despite continuing damage inflicted on thousands of innocent youngsters.

In 2004, the nation’s bishops promised unqualified cooperation with law enforcement. They instituted zero-tolerance reforms for priests but failed to create a credible process for bringing bishops to account.

Missouri officials deserve credit for puncturing the myth that church law and a bishop’s authority can somehow take precedence over criminal law
— and the safety of children.

(Full text)

SOMALIA

Bruce MacKinnon
Halifax Chronicl-Herald
7 October 2011

Catholic Order Settles Sexual Abuse Suit for $17 Million
By IAN AUSTEN
The New York Times: October 6, 2011

Canada: After initially denying allegations of sexual abuse at three Quebec schools it operated, a Roman Catholic order said Thursday that it had settled a class-action lawsuit by the victims with a $17 million payment. In addition to the payment, the Congregation of the Holy Cross issued a formal apology. The settlement covers incidents from 1950 to 2001, mostly at an elite Montreal boarding school [College Notre-Dame] formerly run by the order, which also controls the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. A separate criminal investigation by the police is continuing.

(Full text)

SAUDI ARABIA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saudi Arabia woman, Shaima Jastaina, spared 10 lashes for driving: Princess Amira al-Taweel
BY MICHAEL SHERIDAN
The New York Daily News: Thursday, September 29th 2011

A woman in Saudi Arabia will be spared a whipping for driving a car, a member of the royal family says.

King Abdullah has "canceled" a judge's order that Shaima Jastaina get 10 lashes for violating the country's ban on female drivers, according to < Princess Amira al-Taweel,> wife of Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

"Thank gød, the lashing of Shaima is canceled," she wrote via Twitter on Wednesday. "Thanks to our beloved King. I'm sure all Saudi women will be so happy, I know I am." She also wrote, "It is official, Prince Alwaleed just confirmed it to me."

Afterwards, the princess said she and the prince spoke with Jastaina, and quoted her as saying, "The King's orders washed the fears I lived with after this unjust sentence."

No government official has publicly corroborated the Princess' claim, however. One official told MSNBC that it was true, but spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

Prince Alwaleed (right), who had been fighting to stop the lashings, later told Forbes via text message, "I lobbied the government and the king all the way ... The reform path moves on, regardless of some voices here and there.

Jastaina, believed to be in her 30s, was sentenced on Monday to the whipping.
The order came just a day after Abdullah announced that women would be allowed to vote and hold elected office for the first time, starting in 2015.

Saudi Arabia is the only nation in the world to ban women from driving, whether they are Saudi or not. As a result, women rely on hired drivers, which can cost families hundreds of dollars a month.

(Full text)

• • •

Saudi king annuls lashing female drivers
Ahlul Bayt News Agency / Associated Press: September 29 , 2011

A Saudi government official announced the monarch's decision on Wednesday without offering further details.

The King made the decision after a Jeddah court sentenced Shaima Jastaina to 10 lashes for defying the kingdom's ban on female drivers.

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that bans female drivers. Contrary to some press reports by Western media, the ban has no Islamic basis and reflects radical interpretations of Wahhabi clerics that guide the US-backed Saudi kingdom.

The sentence took Saudi women by surprise, two days after King Abdullah (right) announced that women would be allowed to vote for the first time in 2015. However, there is no national voting in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, women still do not have the right to vote or run as candidates in new municipal elections on Thursday, the second in the kingdom's history. The first were held in 2005.

Amnesty International (AI) has condemned the verdict, describing it as “discrimination against women in the kingdom.”

“Flogging is a cruel punishment in all circumstances but it beggars belief that the authorities in Saudi Arabia have imposed lashes on a woman apparently for merely driving a car,” said Philip Luther, the Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa deputy director.

Saudi human rights groups also say the verdict is a payback for allowing women to take part in elections.

In addition to driving prohibition, women in Saudi Arabia must have written approval from a male guardian, which could be a father, husband, brother or son, to leave the country, work or even undergo certain medical operations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IRELAND

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rupture With Vatican Reveals a Changed Ireland
By SARAH LYALL
The New York Times: September 18, 2011

DUBLIN — Ireland is in the midst of a profound transformation, as rapid as it is revolutionary: it is recalibrating its relationship to the Roman Catholic Church, an institution that has permeated almost every aspect of life here for generations.

This is still a country where abortion is against the law, where divorce became legal only in 1995, where the church runs more than 90 percent of the primary schools and where 87 percent of the population identifies itself as Catholic. But the awe, respect and fear the Vatican once commanded have given way to something new — rage, disgust and defiance — after a long series of horrific revelations about decades of abuse of children entrusted to the church’s care by a reverential populace.

While similar disclosures have tarnished the Vatican’s image in other countries, perhaps nowhere have they shaken a whole society so thoroughly or so intensely as in Ireland. And so when the normally mild-mannered prime minister, Enda Kenny (right), unexpectedly took the floor in Parliament this summer to criticize the church, he was giving voice not just to his own pent-up feelings, but to those of a nation.

His remarks were a ringing declaration of the supremacy of state over church, in words of outrage and indignation that had never before been used publicly by an Irish leader. The effect of his speech was instant and electric.

“It was a seminal moment,” said Patsy McGarry (left), the religious affairs correspondent for The Irish Times. “No Irish prime minister has ever talked to the Catholic Church before in this fashion. The obsequiousness of the Irish state toward the Vatican is gone. The deference is gone.”

There is no question that Mr. Kenny’s declaration deeply angered the Vatican. It immediately withdrew its ambassador from Dublin, Archbishop Giuseppe Leanza (left), ostensibly to help fashion the Vatican’s formal response. (The ambassador has since been reassigned to the Czech Republic.)

Mr. Kenny, who took office in March after the long-dominant Fianna Fail party imploded over the financial crisis, has been accused of opportunism by some critics. But his position as a practicing Catholic from a conservative area helped give moral weight to his speech. And his government’s feisty new tone has been met with widespread approval in a place that feels doubly betrayed: first by the abuse itself, and second by what many see as a cover-up by the church, compounded by the often opaque, legalistic language with which it defends itself.

While most people have not abandoned their religion, many seem to have abandoned the habit of practicing it. The archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin (right), recently estimated that only 18 percent of the Catholics in his archdiocese attended Mass every week.

The government has announced that it will introduce a package of new legislation to protect children from abuse and neglect, including a law — considered but rejected as too contentious by previous governments — that would make it mandatory to report evidence of crimes to the authorities.

It has also established a group to examine how to remove half of the country’s Catholic primary schools from church control.

Eamon Gilmore (right), Ireland’s deputy prime minister, said that Ireland had asserted its role as a “modern democracy.”

No longer would the church enjoy its previous privileges and powers as in times past, when it, with the government’s collusion, “effectively dictated the social policy of the state,” he said.

“Historically, there was a view within the Catholic Church that there was a parallel law, that they had their own system of law, and that was the law to which they were accountable,” Mr. Gilmore said. “At a minimum, that blurred the understanding of the necessity for full compliance with the law of the state.”

He added: “The Catholic Church is perfectly entitled to have its own view and its own rule and to view matters according to its own light. But this is a republic. And there is one law.”

When it comes to protecting children, Mr. Gilmore said, “Everybody in the state — irrespective of whether they’re ordinary citizens doing everyday work, or a priest or a bishop — has to comply with the law.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Panel Approves Measure Banning Face Coverings
By GAIA PIANIGIANI
The New York Times: August 2, 2011

Italy - An Italian parliamentary commission passed a draft law on Tuesday to ban women from wearing clothing that covers their faces in public. The draft would prohibit women from wearing any garment, including the burqa (left) and niqab (right), that covers the face and makes it hard to recognize them in public. Under the proposed legislation, anyone forcing women to cover their faces would be fined and face up to 12 months in jail.

(Full text)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atheists Sue to Block Display of Cross-Shaped Beam in 9/11 Museum
By ELISSA GOOTMAN
The New York Times: July 28, 2011

In the days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, some workers and mourners at the World Trade Center site seized upon a cross-shaped steel beam found amid the rubble as a symbol of faith and hope.

For the past five years, the 17-foot-tall cross was displayed outside a nearby Catholic church. On Saturday it was moved again, to the site of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, where it is to be in the permanent collection.

But the move quickly provoked a lawsuit from American Atheists, a nonprofit group based in New Jersey. It argued that because the cross is a religious symbol of Christianity and the museum is partly government financed and is on government property, the cross’s inclusion in the museum violates the United States Constitution and state civil rights law. The lawsuit, in turn, provoked the ire of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative public interest law firm, as well as others.

Now, the dispute over the “World Trade Center cross” is becoming the latest in a string of heated conflicts over how to memorialize the Sept. 11 attacks. It comes less than two months before the 10th anniversary of 9/11, and in the wake of a feverish debate over the construction of an Islamic cultural center and mosque within blocks of the trade center site.

Marc D. Stern, who is the associate general counsel of the American Jewish Committee and has long studied church-state issues, said the lawsuit presented “an extra-difficult case.”

“It’s a significant part of the story of the reaction to the attack, and that is a secular piece of history,” he said. “It’s also very clear from the repeated blessing of the cross, and the way believers speak about the cross, that it has intense present religious meaning to many people. And both of those narratives about this cross are correct.”

Ira C. Lupu, a professor at the George Washington University Law School and an authority on faith and the law, described the lawsuit as “plausible.” The outcome, he said, could depend on how the beam was displayed when the museum opened.

“If the cross is presented in a way that ties it to the history of its discovery and the religious perception of it by some firefighters or neighbors, then the museum would be framing it as a historical artifact, rather than as a symbol deserving religious reverence,” Professor Lupu said. “I think if it were framed in that way, it could be effectively defended on the merits.”

The atheists’ lawsuit, filed on Wednesday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, lists multiple defendants, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

“The challenged cross constitutes an unlawful attempt to promote a specific religion on governmental land,” the lawsuit charged.

David Silverman, the president of American Atheists, said the suit’s goal was either the removal of the cross or what he called “equal representation.”

“They can allow every religious position to put in a symbol of equal size and stature, or they can take it all out, but they don’t get to pick and choose,” Mr. Silverman said.

And if atheists could put a symbol in the museum, what would it be? Perhaps an atom, Mr. Silverman suggested, “because we’re all made out of atoms,” or maybe a depiction of a firefighter carrying a victim. “It would be about helping,” he said. “It would not be derogatory against any religion or anybody.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEW YORK
July 24, 2011
ALL THE HAPPY PEOPLE

Phyllis Siegel, 77, left, and Connie Kopelov, 85, both of New York, embrace after becoming the first same-sex couple to get married at the Manhattan City Clerk's office, Sunday, July 24, 2011, in New York. (AP Photo/Jason DeCrow)
THE PIOUS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama to Back Repeal of Law Restricting Marriage
By HELENE COOPER
The New York Times: July 19, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Obama will endorse a bill to repeal the law that limits the legal definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman, the White House said Tuesday, taking another step in support of gay rights

Jay Carney (right), the White House press secretary, said Mr. Obama was taking the additional step away from the Defense of Marriage Act — which the administration said earlier this year it would no longer defend in court — in order to “uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.”

If the measure passes, it would make same-sex couples eligible for certain federal benefits that have previously been available only to heterosexual married couples.

The new legislation, which is being sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, is unlikely to pass Congress this year, but will nonetheless face its first committee hearing on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“More and more people across this land know people who are gay, who want to have a lasting relationship, who look at marriage as an economic agreement as well as an emotional agreement,” Mrs. Feinstein said in remarks at the National Press Club. “I think eyes have opened.”

The Obama administration said in February that it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in legal proceedings, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said for the first time that Mr. Obama believed the act was unconstitutional.

The president has said in the past that he opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds; as a Christian, he has said, he views marriage as a union of a man and a woman. But the White House has said more recently that the president’s views on the issue are “evolving.”

Mr. Obama ran for office promising to be a fierce advocate for the rights of gay men and lesbians, and proponents of gay rights say that in many respects he has delivered. He signed a new hate crimes law, pushed Congress to allow gay men, lesbians and bisexuals to serve openly in the military and withdrew legal support for the Defense of Marriage Act.

(Full text)

GOV. ANDREW M. CUOMO signs the marriage bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A triumph for Equal Rights, a victory for
SECULARISM!

New York Allows Same-Sex Marriage, Becoming Largest State to Pass Law
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MICHAEL BARBARO
The New York Times: June 24, 2011

ALBANY — Lawmakers voted late Friday to legalize same-sex marriage, making New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed and giving the national gay-rights movement new momentum from the state where it was born.

The marriage bill, whose fate was uncertain until moments before the vote, was approved 33 to 29 in a packed but hushed Senate chamber. Four members of the Republican majority joined all but one Democrat in the Senate in supporting the measure after an intense and emotional campaign aimed at the handful of lawmakers wrestling with a decision that divided their friends, their constituents and sometimes their own homes.

With his position still undeclared, Senator Mark J. Grisanti, a Republican from Buffalo who had sought office promising to oppose same-sex marriage, told his colleagues he had agonized for months before concluding he had been wrong.

“I apologize for those who feel offended,” Mr. Grisanti said, adding, “I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.”

Senate approval was the final hurdle for the same-sex marriage legislation, which was approved last week by the Assembly.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed the measure at 11:55 p.m., and the law will go into effect in 30 days, meaning that same-sex couples could begin marrying in New York by late July.

Passage of same-sex marriage here followed a daunting run of defeats in other states where voters barred same-sex marriage by legislative action, constitutional amendment or referendum. Just five states currently permit same-sex marriage: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia.

At around 10:30 p.m., moments after the vote was announced, Mr. Cuomo strode onto the Senate floor to wave at cheering supporters who had crowded into the galleries to watch. Trailed by two of his daughters, the governor greeted lawmakers, and paused to single out those Republicans who had defied the majority of their party to support the marriage bill.

“How do you feel?” he asked Senator James S. Alesi, a suburban Rochester Republican who voted against the measure in 2009 and was the first to break party ranks this year. “Feels good, doesn’t it?”

The approval of same-sex marriage represented a reversal of fortune for gay-rights advocates, who just two years ago suffered a humiliating defeat when a same-sex marriage bill was easily rejected by the Senate, which was then controlled by Democrats. This year, with the Senate controlled by Republicans, the odds against passage of same-sex marriage appeared long. But the unexpected victory had a clear champion: Mr. Cuomo.

Mr. Cuomo made same-sex marriage one of his top priorities for the year and deployed his top aide to coordinate the efforts of a half-dozen local gay-rights organizations whose feuding and disorganization had in part been blamed for the defeat two years ago.

The new coalition of same-sex marriage supporters brought in one of Mr. Cuomo’s trusted campaign operatives to supervise a $3 million television and radio campaign aimed at persuading several Republican and Democratic senators to drop their opposition.

For Senate Republicans, even bringing the measure to the floor was a freighted decision. Most of the Republicans firmly oppose same-sex marriage on moral grounds, and many of them also had political concerns, fearing that allowing same-sex marriage to pass on their watch would embitter conservative voters and cost the Republicans their one-seat majority in the Senate.

But after days of contentious discussion capped by a marathon nine-hour closed-door debate on Friday, Republicans came to a fateful decision: The full Senate would be allowed to vote on the bill, the majority leader, Dean G. Skelos, said Friday afternoon, and each member would be left to vote according to his or her conscience.

Republican lawmakers spent much of the week negotiating changes to the marriage bill to protect religious institutions, especially those that oppose same-sex weddings. On Friday, the Assembly and the Senate approved those changes. But they were not enough to satisfy the measure’s staunchest opponents. In a joint statement, New York’s Catholic bishops assailed the vote.

“The passage by the Legislature of a bill to alter radically and forever humanity’s historic understanding of marriage leaves us deeply disappointed and troubled,” the bishops said.

Besides Mr. Alesi and Mr. Grisanti, the four Republicans who voted for the measure included Senators Stephen M. Saland (left) from the Hudson Valley area and Roy J. McDonald (right) of the capital region.

Just one lawmaker rose to speak against the bill: Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx, the only Democratic senator to cast a no vote. Mr. Díaz, saying he was offended by the two-minute restrictions set on speeches, repeatedly interrupted the presiding officer who tried to limit the senator’s remarks, shouting, “You don’t want to hear me.”

“God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage, a long time ago,” Mr. Díaz said.

In New York, passage of the bill reflects rapidly evolving sentiment about same-sex unions. In 2004, according to a Quinnipiac poll, 37 percent of the state’s residents supported allowing same-sex couples to wed. This year, 58 percent of them did.

Dozens more states have laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. But New York could be a shift: It is now by far the largest state to grant legal recognition to same-sex weddings, and one that is home to a large, visible and politically influential gay community.

Supporters of the measure described the victory in New York as especially symbolic — and poignant — because of its rich place in the history of gay rights: the movement’s foundational moment, in June 1969, was a riot against police at the Stonewall Inn, a bar in the West Village. On Friday night, as the Senate voted a crowd jammed into the Stonewall Inn, where televisions were tuned to the Senate hours before the vote began.

On the streets where police beat gay men in 1969, on Friday crowds cheered ar police quiely stood watch.

GAY PRIDE MARCH
Sunday, 26 June 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheering a Gay Marriage Law, and Its Champions
By JOHN LELAND
The New York Times: June 27, 2011

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, Gov. Andrew Cuomo

Two days after New York became the sixth and largest state to legalize same-sex marriage, participants in the 42nd annual gay pride parade on Sunday used the occasion to reflect somberly on the gains and losses of the past year.

Kidding!

They came to shout, dance, cheer, strut, hug and shed tears of joy, knowing that on July 24, when the law takes effect, the season for tears will begin in earnest.

The focus of much of the cheering was Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, who made legalization of same-sex marriage part of his election campaign and visibly led the fight for its approval in the Republican-led State Senate.

Mr. Cuomo marched with several local politicians, including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the New York City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, who is gay. But there was little question that the governor was the parade’s rock star, eliciting shrieks as he made his way down Fifth Avenue.

The roar became almost deafening as the parade turned onto Christopher Street in the West Village. People leaned over police barriers to get a glimpse of the governor or to catch the attention of the cameras following him.

“Finally we got someone who does what he believes in,” said Chuck Sawyer, 49, a fund-raiser for the American Lung Association, who added that he and his partner would probably get married in late summer. “He’s been doing what he said he’d do. A lot of past governors and even the president haven’t come through. He did.”

Revelers held up thousands of printed signs reading “Promise Kept!” and “Thank You Gov. Cuomo,” and Mayor Bloomberg waved a rainbow flag. The signs were from New Yorkers United for Marriage, a coalition of previously squabbling organizations that Mr. Cuomo helped forge.

But it was Mr. Cuomo who basked in the crowd’s attention, beaming and pointing at individuals along the route.

“I’ve been to the parade many times, and there’s always a lot of energy and it’s always been a ball, but this was special,” the governor said as he stepped out of the parade on Christopher Street. “I think you’re going to see this message resonate all across the country now. If New York can do it, it’s O.K. for every other place to do it.”

After a legislative session in which Mr. Cuomo drove through several measures opposed by liberals, including a cap on property tax increases, the governor said, “New York is the progressive capital of the nation. And it’s that once again, and it’s a pleasure to be part of it today.”

In a rare public appearance with the governor, Mr. Cuomo’s girlfriend, Sandra Lee (left with Gov. Cuomo), a celebrity chef who has a gay brother, marched by his side. Ms. Lee figured into Mr. Cuomo’s deliberations over same-sex marriage, according to those who know the couple: she repeatedly reminded him that she wanted the law changed.

Other officials in the parade included State Senator Thomas K. Duane (left with partner LouisWebre) and Assemblyman Daniel J. O’Donnell, both Manhattan Democrats; the state attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman; and Congresswoman Nydia M. Velázquez, whose district includes parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens.

Several people carried hand-lettered signs thanking by name the four Republican senators who voted for the bill [Senators James S. Alesi, Mark J. Grisanti, Stephen M. Saland and Roy J. McDonald].

Former Gov. David A. Paterson, who unsuccessfully pushed for a same-sex-marriage bill in a Democrat-led Senate in 2009, marched a few blocks behind Mr. Cuomo. He held a blue sign that read,
“Thank you Gov. Cuomo.”

 

 

 

 

 

\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gay Marriage: A Milestone
EDITORIAL
The New York Times: June 26, 2011

New York State has made a powerful and principled choice by giving all couples the right to wed and enjoy the legal rights of marriage. It is a proud moment for New Yorkers, thousands of whom took to the streets on Sunday to celebrate this step forward. But this moment does not erase the bigotry against gays and lesbians enshrined in the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows any state to refuse to recognize another state’s unions.

Though there was unnecessary secrecy in the negotiations, Gov. Andrew Cuomo made a determined effort to achieve marriage equality in New York. He shares credit with the four Republican state senators who bucked their party and threats from conservatives to do what they knew was right. State Senators James Alesi, Roy McDonald, Mark Grisanti and Stephen Saland, all from upstate districts, deserve the support of their communities. They showed the kind of strength that is extremely hard to find in today’s politics.

In drafting a compromise, however, Senator Saland and other Republicans insisted on language that carves out exceptions for religious institutions and not-for-profit corporations affiliated with those religious entities. That provision allows those tax-exempt entities to refuse to marry a same-sex couple or to allow the use of their buildings or services for weddings or wedding parties. There was simply no need for these exemptions, since churches are protected under both the federal Constitution and New York law from being required to marry anyone against their beliefs. Equally troubling, an “inseverability clause” in the act appears to make it impossible for any court to invalidate part of the law without invalidating the whole law — raising questions about what happens to couples during an appeal.

This legislative session will be remembered for New York’s acceptance of same-sex marriage, a milestone in the national fight for this fundamental freedom. Five other states, along with the District of Columbia, allow same-sex couples to marry. But more than three dozen states define marriage as between a man and a woman.

For gays and lesbians, the battle for freedom from discrimination continues.

Cuomo approval at 64 percent among NY voters: poll
ASSOCIATED PRESS: June 29, 2011

ALBANY, N.Y. — A new poll shows Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo with high approval ratings among New York voters, including members of the Republican Party and Catholics whose church leaders opposed his successful push last week to legalize gay marriage.

The Quinnipiac University poll shows the overall approval rating for the way Cuomo is handling the job at 64 percent, far higher than ratings for any of six other governors in its recent surveys, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.Cuomo’s approval ratings, matching an April peak overall, are 53 percent among Republicans, 63 percent among union households and 62 percent among Catholics.

Quinnipiac surveyed 1,317 registered voters from last Monday through Sunday, two days after gay marriage was legalized. The poll has a margin of error of 2.7 percentage points.

(Full article)

Texas: Lawsuit Over Prayer Day
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Associated Press: July 14, 2011

A group of atheists and agnostics filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday in Houston seeking to stop an evangelical Christian prayer event next month that is endorsed by Gov. Rick Perry. In its lawsuit, the Freedom from Religion Foundation argues that Mr. Perry’s day of prayer and fasting would violate the constitutional ban on government endorsement of a religion. The event, which is called the Response and is billed as Christian-only, is scheduled for Aug. 6 at Reliant Stadium in Houston. The group, which unsuccessfully sued to stop a national day of prayer earlier this year, filed the case on behalf of 700 members in Texas and called on the court to stop Mr. Perry, a Republican who is contemplating a presidential run, from participating in the meeting or using his office to promote or recognize it. A spokeswoman for Mr. Perry said the lawsuit would not change his plans.

(Full text)

MATTHEW HESS
San Diego activist

 

MARC STERN
American Jewish Committee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JENA TROUTMAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Efforts to Ban Circumcision Gain Traction in California
By JENNIFER MEDINA
The New York Times: June 4, 2011

SANTA MONICA, Calif. — When a group of activists proposed banning circumcision in San Francisco last fall, many people simply brushed them aside. Even in that liberal seaside city, it seemed implausible that thousands of people would support an effort to outlaw an ancient ritual that Jews and Muslims believe fulfills a commandment issued by God.

But last month, the group collected the more than 7,100 signatures needed to get a measure on the fall ballot that would make it illegal to snip the foreskin of a minor within city limits. Now a similar effort is under way in Santa Monica to get such a measure on the ballot for November 2012.

If the anticircumcision activists (they prefer the term “intactivists”) have their way, cities across the country may be voting on whether to criminalize a practice that is common in many American hospitals. Activists say the measures would protect children from an unnecessary medical procedure, calling it “male genital mutilation.”

“This is the furthest we’ve gotten, and it is a huge step for us,” said Matthew Hess, an activist based in San Diego who wrote both bills.

Mr. Hess has created similar legislation for states across the country, but those measures never had much traction. Now he is fielding calls from people who want to organize similar movements in their cities.

“This is a conversation we are long overdue to have in this country,” he said. “The end goal for us is making cutting boys’ foreskin a federal crime.”

Jewish groups see the ballot measures as a very real threat, likening them to bans on circumcision that existed in Soviet-era Russia and Eastern Europe and in ancient Roman and Greek times. The circumcision of males is an inviolable requirement of Jewish law that dates back to Abraham’s circumcision of himself in the Book of Genesis.

They say the proposed ban is an assault on religious freedom that could have a widespread impact all over the country. Beyond the biblical, there are emotional connections: checking for circumcision was one of the ways Jewish children could be culled from their peers by Nazis and the czar’s armies.

“People are shocked that it has reached this level because there has never been this kind of a direct assault on a Jewish practice here,” said Marc Stern, associate general counsel for the American Jewish Committee, an advocacy group. “This is something that American Jews have always taken for granted — that something that was so contested elsewhere but here, we’re safe and we’re secure.”

Mr. Hess also writes an online comic book, “Foreskin Man,” with villains like “Monster Mohel (a rabbi specializing in circumcisions).” On Friday, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement saying the comic employed “grotesque anti-Semitic imagery."

Jena Troutman (right), the mother of two young boys who is promoting the ballot measure in Santa Monica, said she views her work as a chance to educate would-be parents against a procedure that “can really do serious damage to the child.”

Ms. Troutman has run the Web site wholebabyrevolution.com for two years, and she is fond of rattling off sayings like “Your baby is perfect, no snipping required.” Well versed in the stories of circumcisions gone awry, she said the recent death of a New York City toddler who was circumcised at a hospital convinced her that she should push for the ballot measure.

If the ballot measure passed, it would certainly face legal challenges. But several legal experts said it was far from certain that it would be struck down in a court.

Ms. Troutman said she considered putting religious exemptions in the measure, but then decided, “Why should only some babies be protected?”

FOLLOWUP
DEFERRING TO THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

In Santa Monica, Circumcision Opponent Abandons Efforts
By JENNIFER MEDINA
The New York Times: June 7, 2011

LOS ANGELES — The primary backer of an effort to get a ban on circumcision on the ballot in Santa Monica is abandoning her push, saying the proposed legislation had been misrepresented as an effort to impinge on religious freedom. A similar measure in San Francisco is scheduled for a fall vote.

The woman, Jena Troutman, a mother of two boys who began the process of trying to get a ban on the Santa Monica municipal ballot in 2012, said the news media had distorted the effort.

“The religious opposition really rose up, and I never intended it to be about that at all,” Ms. Troutman said. “Ninety-five percent of babies who are circumcised have nothing to do with religion — that’s what I was focused on. Once I discovered this bill was not going to open up the conversation but was closing it down, I wanted no part of it.”

Ms. Troutman said she wanted to focus on educating parents through the Web site she runs, wholebabyrevolution.com.

In recent days, criticism of the two measures had focused on their author, Matthew Hess, who lives in San Diego and created an online comic called “Foreskin Man,” which features characters like “Monster Mohel.” Several organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League, said the comic relied on anti-Semitic imagery.

Mr. Hess defended the comic, saying it was intended to be from a baby’s point of view. “It was designed to really evoke a response that talking about studies and statistics never does,” Mr. Hess said. “What would that baby be thinking other than ‘That man coming at me with a knife is a monster’?”

Mr. Hess said Tuesday that he was optimistic about the prospect of the ban passing in San Francisco.

 

 

 

 

 

ROGER VANGHELUWE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAITH HEALING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Changes in Oregon Law Put Faith-Healing Parents on Trial
By ISOLDE RAFTERY
The New York Times: May 29, 2011

OREGON CITY, Ore. — At the Clackamas County courthouse here, Timothy and Rebecca Wyland sat next to each other — ramrod straight, their shoulders barely touching — as they watched images of their daughter flash on the screen.

At birth, the girl, Alayna, was a pink-cheeked bundle, but by 6 months, a growth the size of a baseball had consumed the left side of her face, pushing her eyeball out of its socket. The Wylands, members of the Followers of Christ Church, a faith-healing sect whose members shun medicine, would not take her to a doctor.

“Timothy and Rebecca Wyland — they recognized that medical attention was mandated for this condition,” said Christine Landers, the state prosecutor who is trying the Wylands for first-degree criminal mistreatment, a felony that can carry a five-year prison term.

“Instead, they anointed her with oils and laid down hands.”

Alayna was found to have a hemangioma, a benign tumor that may cause blindness if it grows around the eye.

In June, half a dozen police officers and a caseworker took the infant from her parents and placed her in foster care for two months while she received treatment. She is now 17 months old.

Mr. Wyland, 45, and Ms. Wyland, 24, are the most recent members of the Followers of Christ Church to face trial for not obtaining medical care for their children.

The church first came under criticism in 1998 after the local news media reported that of the 78 children buried in the church’s graveyard ['baby row'], at least 21 could have survived if they had received medical attention.

At the time, Clackamas County prosecutors said they were prevented from intervening by Oregon laws that gave legal protection to parents who refused because of their faith to seek medical care for their children.

The next year, the state Legislature repealed this exemption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Athiests have more fulfilling sex than believers
By JEREMY OLSHAN
The New York P:ost: May 21, 2011

God is BAD in bed!

Although the Lord is frequently invoked during sex, belief in religion puts a damper on one's sex life, according to a new study.

Atheists have more fulfilling sex than believers, because they are freer from the guilty feelings imposed by religions, according to the survey of 14,000 people conducted by psychologist Darrel Ray (below left)and Kansas University researcher Amanda Brown.

"The amount of masturbation, or sex, or kinky behavior is no different between the religious groups, but the feelings of guilt vary considerably," said Ray, an outspoken atheist.

Mormons ranked highest on the scale of sexual guilt, with an average score of 8.19 out of 10, according to the survey, followed closely by Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostal Christians, Seventh Day Adventists and Baptists.

The Catholics surveyed reported an average guilt rating of 6.34. By contrast, atheists rated their shame levels at 4.71, and agnostics 4.81.

"One of the biggest surprises of the study was that we found that once people leave religion, their enjoyment of sex seems to greatly increase," Ray said. "That's what they told us, anyway."

These former believers scored their post-religion enjoyment of sex a 7.8 out of 10 average. Guilt was particularly high on the subjects of masturbation and pre-marital sex, the study found.

"Those raised with religion reported feeling incredibly guilty about masturbation -- the guilt scores were just off the charts,” Ray said. “One respondent told me, ‘If I masturbated under the covers, I thought God couldn’t see me,' but afterwards I still prayed for forgiveness.”

Despite the imposition of guilt, religion does not appear to have much impact on the amount of masturbation and premarital sex, however.

“The moral of the story uis that sex happens,” Ray said. “Those hormones are raging no matter what the religion.” So while the sex itself may not vary between believers and nonbelievers, the post-coital experience tends to be more positive for atheists, he said.

(Full story - Print version)

Religion and Sex Quiz
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
May 21, 2011

Faith is a huge force in American life, and it’s common to hear the Bible cited to bolster political and moral positions, especially against same-sex marriage and abortion. So here’s my 2011 religion quiz. Choose the best responses (some questions may have more than one correct answer):

1. The Bible’s position on abortion is:

a. Never mentioned.
b. To forbid it along with all forms of artificial birth control.
c. Condemnatory, except to save the life of the mother.


2. The Bible suggests “marriage” is:

a. The lifelong union of one man and one woman.
b. The union of one man and up to 700 wives.
c. Often undesirable, because it distracts from service to the Lord.


3. The Bible says of homosexuality:

a. Leviticus describes male sexual pairing as an abomination.
b. A lesbian should be stoned at her father’s doorstep.
c. There’s plenty of ambiguity and no indication of physical intimacy, but some readers point to Ruth and Naomi’s love as suspiciously close, or to King David declaring to Jonathan: “Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (II Samuel 1:23-26)


4. In the Bible, erotic writing is:

a. Forbidden by Deuteronomy as “adultery of the heart.”
b. Exemplified by “Song of Songs,” which celebrates sex for its own sake.
c. Unmentioned.


5. Jesus says that divorce is permitted:

a. Only after counseling and trial separation.
b. Never.
c. Only to men whose wives have been unfaithful.



6. Among sexual behavior that is forbidden is:

a. Adultery.
b. Incest.
c. Sex with angels.




7. The people of Sodom were condemned principally for:

a. Homosexuality.
b. Blasphemy.
c. Lack of compassion for the poor and needy.

This quiz, and the answers below, draw from a new book, “Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire.” It’s by Jennifer Wright Knust, a Bible scholar at Boston University who is also an ordained American Baptist pastor.

Professor Knust’s point is that the Bible’s teachings about sexuality are murky and inconsistent and prone to being hijacked by ideologues (this quiz involves some cherry-picking of my own).

There’s also lots we just don’t understand: What exactly is the offense of “arsenokoitai” or “man beds” that St. Paul proscribes? It is often translated as a reference to homosexuality, but it more plausibly relates to male prostitution or pimping. Ambiguity is everywhere, which is why some of you will surely harrumph at my quiz answers.

For answers click √ on Kristof image

Harold Camping mum about judgment day, atheists aren't
By AMY ROLPH
SEATTLEPI.COM: Saturday, May 21, 2011, 09:16 p.m.

SEATTLE -- The world didn't end Saturday at 6 p.m.

Despite the predictions of a radio broadcaster turned prophet, massive earthquakes didn’t rock the entire Earth. The righteous didn’t rise up to heaven as 6 p.m. struck in timezones all over the world, and trumpets didn’t sound to mark the start of Armageddon.

For atheists, this could be an "I told you so" moment. But that would be too easy. Almost too easy, anyway.

Instead of gloating, some atheists hoisted beers and called the latest failed prediction of Family Radio's Harold Camping a lesson in human behavior.

“We know he’s not the first or the last who’s going to do this,” said Mike Gillis, a host and producer of the Seattle-area radio show Ask An Atheist on KLAY 1180 AM.

Gillis is one of a handful of atheists who planned a “rapture party” Saturday night at Dorky's Arcade in Tacoma, about 30 miles south of Seattle. About 80 people RSVPed to the event on Facebook, saying they’d come listen to music and wait for confirmation that there wasn’t any rapture.

"I'm down," one Facebook fan joked on the event listing. "But just until the looting starts."

The producers at Ask An Atheist have had their eye on Camping and his doomsday prophecies for a while. They started an online “countdown to backpedaling” clock about six months ago, ticking off the seconds until the religious leader would offer an explanation about why judgment day stood him up.

So far, Camping hasn't explained what happened.

THE CIRCFUMCISION OF CHRIST
Artist unknown

Pitzer College in California Adds Major in Secularism
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
The New York Times: May 8, 2011

Colleges and universities have long offered majors in religion or theology. But with more and more people now saying they have no religion, one college has decided to be the first to offer a major in secularism. Starting this fall, Pitzer College, a small liberal arts institution in Southern California, will inaugurate a department of secular studies.

The department was proposed by Phil Zuckerman, a sociologist of religion, who describes himself as “culturally Jewish, but agnostic-atheist on questions of deep mystery.” Over the years he grew increasingly intrigued by the growth of secularism in the United States and around the world. He studied and taught in Denmark, one of the world’s most secular countries, and has written several books about atheism.

Studying nonbelief is as valid as studying belief, Mr. Zuckerman said, and the new major will make that very clear.

“There are hundreds of millions of people who are nonreligious. I want to know who they are, what they believe, why they are nonreligious. You have some countries where huge percentages of people — Czechs, Scandinavians — now call themselves atheists. Canada is experiencing a huge wave of secularization. This is happening very rapidly. “It has not been studied,” he added.

The percentage of American adults who say they have no religion has doubled in 20 years, to 15 percent, according to the American Religious Identification Survey, released in 2008. The survey was conducted by researchers at Trinity College in Hartford, which houses the Institute for the Study of Secularism, Society and Culture but does not have a distinct major in secular studies. Barry A. Kosmin (left), the director of the institute, said Pitzer College would be the first to have such a major.

On April 28, Pitzer faculty members on the College Council voted unanimously to approve the secular studies major, subject to review in four years.

Laura Skandera Trombley (right), the president of Pitzer, said in an interview, “It’s a serious area of scholarly endeavor, and Pitzer College has a tradition of doing really exciting, cutting-edge intellectual work, so this really fits into the ethos of the college.”

Mr. Zuckerman said he immediately heard from three students interested in the major. One of them was Kiley Lawrence, a freshman from Mission Hills, Kan., and a pre-med student at Scripps College, one of the seven Claremont Colleges.

Ms. Lawrence attended an Episcopal school through eighth grade and was well versed in the Bible, but she said she became a skeptic early on. Now she plans to declare a double major in biophysics and secular studies, because, she said, “each enhances the other.”

Ms. Lawrence, 19, said, “I feel as though I’m being included in something really exciting and innovative, and perhaps even historic.”

Atheists Seek Chaplain Role in the Military
By JAMES DAO
The New York Times: April 26, 2011

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. — In the military, there are more than 3,000 chaplains who minister to the spiritual and emotional needs of active duty troops, regardless of their faiths. The vast majority are Christians, a few are Jews or Muslims, one is a Buddhist. A Hindu, possibly even a Wiccan may join their ranks soon.

But an atheist?

Strange as it sounds, groups representing atheists and secular humanists are pushing for the appointment of one of their own to the chaplaincy, hoping to give voice to what they say is a large — and largely underground — population of nonbelievers in the military.

Joining the chaplain corps is part of a broader campaign by atheists to win official acceptance in the military. Such recognition would make it easier for them to raise money and meet on military bases. It would help ensure that chaplains, religious or atheist, would distribute their literature, advertise their events and advocate for them with commanders.

But winning the appointment of an atheist chaplain will require support from senior chaplains, a tall order. Many chaplains are skeptical: Do atheists belong to a “faith group,” a requirement for a chaplain candidate? Can they provide support to religious troops of all faiths, a fundamental responsibility for chaplains?

Jason Torpy, a former Army captain who is president of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, said humanist chaplains would do everything religious chaplains do, including counsel troops and help them follow their faiths. But just as a Protestant chaplain would not preside over a Catholic service, a humanist might not lead a religious ceremony, though he might help organize it.

“Humanism fills the same role for atheists that Christianity does for Christians and Judaism does for Jews,” Mr. Torpy said in an interview. “It answers questions of ultimate concern; it directs our values.”

Mr. Torpy has asked to meet the chiefs of chaplains for each of the armed forces, which have their own corps, to discuss his proposal. The chiefs have yet to comment.

At the same time, an atheist group at Fort Bragg called Military Atheists and Secular Humanists, or MASH, has asked the Army to appoint an atheist lay leader at the base. A new MASH chapter at Fort Campbell, Ky., is planning to do the same as are atheists at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida.

Sgt. Justin Griffith, 28, a communication sergeant at Fort Bragg from Dallas, was a passionate Christian and creationist until his teens. Now his dog tags list his religious preference as atheist, and he is pushing to create MASH chapters on as many bases as possible.

He is also giving thought to becoming a chaplain himself, though it would take years: He would have to earn a graduate degree in theology and then be commissioned an officer. He would also need the endorsement of “a qualified religious organization,” a role Mr. Torpy’s organization is seeking to play.

Sergeant Griffith said he believed there were already atheist chaplains in the military — just not open ones.

Such lay leaders can lead “services” in lieu of chaplains and have access to meeting rooms, including chapels.

Chaplains at Fort Bragg near here have seemed open to the idea, if somewhat perplexed by it.

“You’re not a faith group; you’re a lack-of-faith group,” First Lt. Samantha Nicoll, an active atheist at Fort Bragg, recalled a chaplain friend’s saying about the idea. “But I said, ‘What else is there for us?’”

Atheist leaders acknowledge the seeming contradiction of nonbelievers seeking to become chaplains or receive recognition from the chaplain corps. But they say they believe the imprimatur of the chaplaincy will embolden atheists who worry about being ostracized for their worldviews.

Defense Department statistics show that about 9,400 of the nation’s 1.4 million active-duty military personnel identify themselves as atheists or agnostics, making them a larger subpopulation than Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists in the military.

But atheist leaders say those numbers are an undercount because, they believe, there are many nonbelievers among the 285,000 service members who claim no religious preference on military surveys.

A Case for Hell
By ROSS DOUTHAT
The New York Times: April 25, 2011

Here’s a revealing snapshot of religion in America. On Easter Sunday, two of the top three books on Amazon.com’s Religion and Spirituality best-seller list mapped the geography of the afterlife. One was “Heaven Is for Real: A Little Boy’s Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back,” an account of a 4-year-old’s near-death experience as dictated to his pastor father. The other was “Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived,” in which the evangelical preacher Rob Bell argues that hell might not exist.

In part, hell’s weakening grip on the religious imagination is a consequence of growing pluralism. Bell’s book begins with a provocative question: Are Christians required to believe that Gandhi is in hell for being Hindu? The mahatma is a distinctive case, but swap in “my Hindu/Jewish/Buddhist neighbor” for Gandhi, and you can see why many religious Americans find the idea of eternal punishment for wrong belief increasingly unpalatable.

But the more important factor in hell’s eclipse, perhaps, is a peculiar paradox of modernity. As our lives have grown longer and more comfortable, our sense of outrage at human suffering — its scope, and its apparent randomness — has grown sharper as well. The argument that a good deity couldn’t have made a world so rife with cruelty is a staple of atheist polemic, and every natural disaster inspires a round of soul-searching over how to reconcile with God’s omnipotence with human anguish.

These debates ensure that earthly infernos get all the press. Hell means the Holocaust, the suffering in Haiti, and all the ordinary “hellmouths” (in the novelist Norman Rush’s resonant phrase) that can open up beneath our feet. And if it’s hard for the modern mind to understand why a good God would allow such misery on a temporal scale, imagining one who allows eternal suffering seems not only offensive but absurd.

Atheists have license to scoff at damnation, but to believe in God and not in hell is ultimately to disbelieve in the reality of human choices. If there’s no possibility of saying no to paradise then none of our no’s have any real meaning either.

Teenagers Speak Up for Lack of Faith
By MICHAEL WINERIP
The New York Times: April 3, 2011

PANAMA CITY, Fla. — Every other Wednesday, right after school at 2:45, the newest club at Rutherford High, the atheist club, meets in Room 13-211.

Last Wednesday, Jim Dickey, the president, started out by asking his fellow student atheists (there are a few agnostics, too) whether they wanted to put together an all-atheist Ultimate Frisbee team for a charity event.

“We can pay the entry fee from the club treasury,” said Michael Creamer, the atheists’ faculty adviser, who urged them to take part.

Club members discussed what to do about Faith Week. Rutherford High’s two Christian clubs will be sponsoring a series of before-school prayer circles around the flagpole this week, and several of the atheists felt a need to respond in some way. “We can set up informational tables near the flagpole and do our own speeches,” said Mr. Creamer, who suggested waiting a few weeks. “Remember, we’re not trying to be confrontational; this will be a counterpoint.”

Mr. Creamer, 47, an English teacher and longtime atheist who grew up in a family of Free Will Baptists, is constantly urging club members to “be friendly, put on those smiles — people don’t expect that from atheists.”

The Christians and atheists at Rutherford High get along better than some might expect. Joshua Mercer, a senior, who is president of Ignite, a Christian club, and Jim, the atheist president, are close friends. They love comparing philosophies, and giving each other a hard time.

Still, he worries about Jim and the other atheists. “If they don’t accept Jesus Christ as a savior, they will definitely go to hell,” said Joshua, who rises at 4:30 each morning to read the Bible with his grandmother.
Joshua believes there is still time for Jim. “Jim could change,” he said. “If he will accept Jesus in his heart, he has a free ride to heaven.”

There have long been college atheist clubs.... But recently they have been springing up at high schools.

Long before there was an atheist club, Mr. Creamer was open about his atheism. And yet as Joshua, the Christian club president, says, “He lets you know what he believes, but I’ve never seen him try to convert anyone.”

Mr. Creamer teaches his students that if they are going to stick out their necks for unconventional ideas, they better not stick out for any of the wrong reasons. “Mr. Creamer told us, as an atheist, you have to be on your best behavior,” said Nick Machuca, a junior.

Last fall, Breane Lyga joined both a Christian club and the atheist club. Some Christian club members thought she was doing it for a goof. Others wondered if she was a spy for the atheists, but Breane said she was just confused.

“I was kind of agnostic,” she said. “I wanted to get both points of view.” She talked with Mrs. Harrell and Mr. Creamer, two of her favorite teachers. She weighed the pluses and minuses. Around Christmas she stopped attending the Christian club meetings.

“I guess I found out who I was,” she said.

Center For Inquiry launches ad campaign about living
without religion
examiner.com: March 1st, 2011

The Center For Inquiry (CFi) today launched a nationwide multimedia campaign to deliver the message that it is possible to live a fulfilling life without God. From their headquarters in Amherst, New York, CFi announced plans to deploy the ad campaign in three American cities.

Beginning today, there are ads on 15 buses and at two metro stations in the Washington D.C. area. The bus ads and billboards state

"You don't need God - to hope, to care, to love, to live."

“With this campaign, we are aiming to dispel some myths about the nonreligious,” said Ronald A. Lindsay, CFi president & CEO. “One common myth is that the nonreligious lead empty, meaningless, selfish, self-centered lives. This is not only false, it’s ridiculous. Unfortunately, all too many people accept this myth because that’s what they hear about nonbelievers.”

The campaign selected Washington D.C., Indianapolis, and Houston as the three cities in which to roll out the initial ad blitz.

“Most everyone in the United States knows someone who is not religious, whether they’re aware of this or not,” observed Lindsay.

“We’re your friends, neighbors, and colleagues-and we have similar hopes and concerns. Irrational prejudice against nonbelievers has no place in twenty-first-century America.”

Center For Inquiry is a nonprofit organization with the mission to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values.

CFI has branches all over the world, with 19 here in the United States. The local CFi branch here in Portland, Oregon is one of the most active and productive. CFi events locally include meetups, book readings, lectures, and training opportunites. For more information, see the CFi Portland website.

The website of the ad campaign,, contains more information about what CFi hopes to accomplish.

CFi is joining the list of secular organizations who have decided it is high time to begin to counter the negative perceptions many people have against freethinkers, and to let people who have lost faith know there are places they can go to learn more and to share their experiences.

Faith has been dwindling in much of the world for years, and today one in six Americans join that trend in not identifying with any religion. While not all of them are atheists, it's a good bet many who do proclaim a particular religious affiliation are actually skeptics. The number of freethinkers may be larger than some polls indicate.

Click √ on image for video

Mr. Obama Moves Against Bias
EDITORIAL
The New York Times: February 24, 2011

In a heartening reversal, President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. That deplorable 1996 law sanctioned blatant discrimination against the spousal rights of married gays and lesbians.

The announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. struck at the core of the matter, concluding that Congress had violated constitutional due process in a debate rife with “moral disapproval” of gay men and lesbians — “precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus” banned by the equal protection clause.

The decision reversed the administration’s untenable position of defending the law’s affront to equal rights even as Mr. Obama made clear his personal opposition. Instead, Mr. Holder said it was no longer possible to advance “hypothetical rationales” in court independent of the bias-steeped record of Congressional enactment.
The act, passed in an election year and signed by President Bill Clinton, arbitrarily denied federal benefits for married couples to married same-sex couples, including Social Security survivor payments and the option to file joint tax returns. It allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that are legally recognized in other states.

The president’s decision is a major advancement for protecting the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. It firmly skewers what has been bad law and complements the recent Congressional repeal of the government’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” prejudice suffered by gay men and lesbians serving the nation in the military.

The administration said its revised position was in part because of the fact that current court challenges require a rigorous enforcement standard — “heightened scrutiny” — in the case of protecting minority groups who have suffered a clear history of official discrimination. The courts will still be the ultimate arbiter of the law, but it is vital that the administration dropped its commitment to press wrongheaded defenses. Congress may still pursue its own brief in the courts.

The reversal seems likely to redound into the next election cycle — a fight very much worth having. As a candidate three years ago, Mr. Obama opposed the defense of marriage law but would not endorse same-sex marriage, instead supporting civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. In December, Mr. Obama said his feelings on the subject were “constantly evolving.” Wednesday’s decision raises the hope that they are evolving in the right direction — equal rights for all Americans.

Meanwhile, it is stirring that the president has done the right thing on the marriage law. He has scored Congress’s shabby violation of constitutional rights that supposedly protect all Americans, not just a selected majority in an election year.

Illustration: AP

(Full editorial)

A Bush Rule on Providers of Abortions Is Revised
By ROBERT PEAR
The New York Times: February 18, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday rescinded most of a 2008 rule that granted sweeping protections to health care providers who opposed abortion, sterilization and other medical procedures on religious or moral grounds.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said the rule, issued in the last days of the Bush administration, could “negatively impact patient access to contraception and certain other medical services.”

Federal laws make clear that health care providers cannot be compelled to perform or assist in an abortion, Ms. Sebelius said. The Bush rule went far beyond these laws and upset the balance between patients’ rights to obtain health care and “the conscience rights of health care providers,” she added.

The Obama administration retained and updated part of the 2008 rule that established procedures to investigate complaints from health care workers who believe they have been subjected to discrimination or coercion because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

The Roman Catholic Church and some Republicans, like Representative Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania(left), criticized the Obama administration’s decision to revoke the Bush rule. But advocates for abortion rights welcomed it.

“The administration’s action today is cause for disappointment,” said Deirdre A. McQuade, a spokeswoman for the Pro-Life Secretariat at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Hawaii: After Complaint, Senate Stops Praying
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: January 21, 2011

Fearing a possible court challenge, the State Senate has voted to silence the daily prayer offered before each session. A citizen’s complaint had prompted the American Civil Liberties Union last summer to send the Senate a letter noting that its invocations often referenced Jesus, contravening the separation of church and state. A committee evaluated the issue and recommended allowing nonsectarian invocations that avoided references to deities, but the Senate decided to do away with prayers altogether rather than constrain them.

(Full article)

Alabama: Governor Apologizes for Excluding Non-Christians
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: January 20, 2011

Gov. Robert Bentley apologized Wednesday for his inauguration day remarks about only Christians being his brothers and sisters and said he would work for people of all faiths. Mr. Bentley said he was speaking as an evangelical Christian to fellow Baptists when he made the comments from a church pulpit during a Martin Luther King Day event. “If anyone from other religions felt disenfranchised by the language, I want to say I am sorry,” he said. Governor Bentley, a Republican, told the church crowd just moments into his new administration: “Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.”

(Full article)

My Favorite War
By GAIL COLLINS
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The New York Times: December 11, 2010

Well, here’s some good news for a change. The Holiday Parade of Lights in Tulsa, Okla., has been saved!

The Tulsa City Council has voted to allow the parade to go forward Saturday night, despite protests against the disappearance of the word “Christmas” from its name.

It’s not entirely clear that the council actually could have stopped it, or even whether the parade ever officially had Christmas in its name. But Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma is outraged.

Inhofe was away from home last December, stuck in Washington trying to kill off health care reform. Now he’s back, and he’s noted a dwindling in the parade’s religious angle. “I just don’t like what’s going on in America today, all over the country, with the aversion some people seem to have toward Christ,” he said in one of his many interviews explaining that he will no longer ride his horse in any holiday event that isn’t named for Christmas.

Go to it, Senator Inhofe! I love this controversy, and only in part because it diverts Oklahoma’s senior senator from his normal day job of trying to convince the world that global warming doesn’t exist.

We live in a time of so many terrifying, insurmountable problems. It’s comforting to return to arguing about whether the nation’s moral fiber is endangered if Tulsa downplays the religious aspects of a parade full of Santa Clauses that is currently sponsored by a popular downtown pub.

Actually, the “war on Christmas” controversy has been a little muted this year, and I’ve missed it. Even the public hearing in Tulsa looked thinly attended, as if the issue at hand was charter revision instead of the preservation of the Christian half of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

The American Family Association is still checking up on major retailers and informing us that while Bed Bath & Beyond is “for Christmas,” Foot Locker is “against.” And a coalition of concerned clergy in Fort Worth is calling residents to boycott the transit system because someone purchased ads on four buses that say “Millions of Americans Are Good Without God.”
It is my impression that people who ride buses in Texas don’t have a whole lot of other options. Really, concerned clergy, do you think they’re doing it to cut their carbon footprints?

But until Tulsa, the biggest conflict was here in the New York area, where a billboard war erupted after the American Atheists forked over $20,000 for a sign that showed a picture of a Nativity scene and the message: “You know it’s a myth. This Season, Celebrate Reason!” The Catholic League then erected one on the other side of the Lincoln Tunnel that retorts: “You Know It’s Real. This Season, Celebrate Jesus.”

In this battle for the hearts and minds of commuters, the atheists seem to have been overly belligerent, although it is understandable that they get a little testy this time of year.

If you complain about Christmas overkill because you are, say, a Muslim or a Jew, the general response is a quick hug and a nervous affirmation that all faiths deserve respect. But atheists do not get that many hugs, and perhaps it is beginning to tell on them.

We are still enjoying the continuing fights about What To Call The Tree. In one of the most notable screeds of the season, Gary Bauer, the former Republican presidential candidate and social conservative, appeared to be saying that officials in Portland, Ore., who named the annual tree-lighting ceremony “Tree Lighting” were doing the work of the would-be Christmas tree bomber. “Radical Islam’s secular enablers have been driving Christianity from the public square for decades,” he wrote.

Bauer said in a phone interview that he was not suggesting that trying to blow up downtown Portland and secularizing the tree lighting were equivalent.

“To me, it was just a nice rhetorical way to get people to read the column,” he said.
I am in sympathy with such sentiments since I would do just about everything short of bomb threats to get people to read a column. I also have a soft spot in my heart for Bauer and I am sorry he is not planning to run for president again in 2012 because the moment he fell off the platform during a preprimary pancake flipping contest in New Hampshire was one of my personal campaign high points.

But about Tulsa. For years the parade was sponsored by the American Electric Power-Public Service Company of Oklahoma, which is mercifully known as P.S.O. “We always referred to it as the P.S.O. Parade of Lights,” a spokesman for the utility told The Tulsa World. When P.S.O. backed out, a downtown pub named McNellie’s agreed to underwrite the Holiday Parade of Lights. You’d think people would be grateful that the new sponsor didn’t want to call it the Happy Hour Parade of Lights, or Atomic Chicken Wings Special. But no.

Keep fighting. I haven’t thought about the Bush tax cuts for hours.

(Full text)

Test Your Savvy on Religion
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
The New York Times: October 9, 2010

The New York Times reported recently on a Pew Research Center poll in which religious people turned out to be remarkably uninformed about religion. Almost half of Catholics didn’t understand Communion. Most Protestants didn’t know that Martin Luther started the Reformation. Almost half of Jews didn’t realize Maimonides was Jewish. And Atheists were among the best informed about religion.

So let me give everybody another chance. And given the uproar about Islam, I’ll focus on extremism and fundamentalism — and, as you’ll see, there’s a larger point to this quiz.

Note that some questions have more than one correct choice.

1. Which holy book stipulates that a girl who does not bleed on her wedding night should be stoned to death?
a. Koran
b. Old Testament
c. (Hindu) Upanishads

2. Which holy text declares: “Let there be no compulsion in religion”?
a. Koran
b. Gospel of Matthew
c. Letter of Paul to the Romans

3. The terrorists who pioneered the suicide vest in modern times, and the use of women in terror attacks, were affiliated with which major religion?
a. Islam
b. Christianity
c. Hinduism

4. "Every child is touched by the devil as soon as he is born and this contact makes him cry. Excepted are Mary and her Son.” This verse is from:
a. Letters of Paul to the Corinthians
b. The Book of Revelation
c. An Islamic hadith, or religious tale

5. Which holy text is sympathetic to slavery?
a. Old Testament
b. New Testament
c. Koran

6. In the New Testament, Jesus’ views of homosexuality are:
a. strongly condemnatory
b. forgiving
c. never mentioned

7. Which holy text urges responding to evil with kindness, saying: “repel the evil deed with one which is better.”
a. Gospel of Luke
b. Book of Isaiah
c. Koran

8. Which religious figure preaches tolerance by suggesting that God looks after all peoples and leads them all to their promised lands?
a. Muhammad
b. Amos
c. Jesus

9. Which of these religious leaders was a polygamist?
a. Jacob
b. King David
c. Muhammad

10. What characterizes Muhammad’s behavior toward the Jews of his time?
a. He killed them.
b. He married one.
c. He praised them as a chosen people.

11. Which holy scripture urges that the "little ones" of the enemy be dashed against the stones?
a. Book of Psalms
b. Koran
c. Leviticus

12. Which holy scripture suggests beating wives who misbehave?
a. Koran
b. Letters of Paul to the Corinthians
c. Book of Judges

13. Which religious leader is quoted as commanding women to be silent during services?
a. The first Dalai Lama
b. St. Paul
c. Muhammad

For answers, click √ on Kristof image

Click √ on image above for full survey

GENERAL DIRECTORY

PROVERBS

Unequal Time for Theists

Inquisitorial News

Good News