Humanist News

American Humanist Association Blog's New Location

2005-11-17T09:09:00.000-05:00

To better blog we have moved our blog to
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanistnews/ Thanks Everyone

Singin' those N-Word Blues

2005-11-12T10:31:00.000-05:00

An article by Earl Ofari Hutchinson appearing yesterday on AlterNet, "Nothing Hip in 'Boondocks' N-Word"
attempts to reopen the question as to whether blacks or anyone else should consider nigger an acceptable word. As a statement of his own reasons for not using it, I consider Hutchinson's article to be a thoughtful testimony of personal conviction and practice. But as a preachment to everyone else (particularly Aaron McGruder, creator of the comic strip and now the TV cartoon, "Boondocks") I consider it quixotic at best and paternalistic at worst. Not only does the word now have wide currency in many contexts (and commedian George Carlin has persuasively argued that it isn't the word that's telling, it's the context), but it was absolutely necessary in the premier episode of "Boondocks" on Cartoon Network for McGruder to use it. He simply couldn't have made his points without it.

Does that mean I completely disagree with Hutchinson? No. I personally follow the practice he recommends, as does my wife (who is black). Nor do I completely agree with what seems to be McGruder's take on certain racial issues and realities. But I'm not going to presume that blacks who choose to use the word generally don't know what they're doing and therefore need my or anyone else's chiding or correction. And I'm going to enjoy watching "Boondocks" precisely because it is capable of jarring my sensibilities and making me think. If you missed the first episode, "Garden Pary," you can catch it at Midnight tonight and again at 3:00 am. The second episode, "Trial of Robert Kelly," first airs Sunday at 11:00 pm.

Humanist Earthquake Relief

2005-11-10T13:46:00.000-05:00

In the wake of the earthquake in Kashmir, Pervez Hoodbhoy, a professor of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Pakistan and a leading Humanist, organized worldwide support for his relief efforts, raising approximately $100,000 so far. Members of the American Humanist Association have been active in funding his work, as a story in the forthcoming issue of the AHA newsletter Free Mind will reveal.

Moreover, given what Dr. Hoodbhoy says in his latest progress report, which I received only today, I think it is a particularly good thing that Humanists are on the scene. Hoodbhoy writes:

The mullahs are in full form in the mosques and on every TV channel, telling people that the earthquake was divine retribution. Most buy it. I am angry and appalled, but scarcely surprised, that all but a few of my (physics) students share this view. Islamic parties and jihadist groups are to be seen everywhere and are clearly doing a great job in obtaining and distributing relief supplies. Some are openly flaunting their weapons. In an environment of ignorance and mullah domination, abject poverty, and exploding population, they will surely be able to get much cannon fodder and swell their ranks.

While this is depressing news, it would be worse without a Humanist presence at all. Furthermore, it serves as an illustration of how vitally necessary the Humanist outlook is if we ever hope to build a better world.

Kangaroo Senate

2005-11-10T11:00:00.000-05:00

The New York Times and the AP are both reporting that oil executives from several of the largest oil companies have attempted to justify the record profits of their companies in Senate hearings yesterday. Apparently, even some moderate Republicans were calling for a windfall tax.

Give me a break guys! There's little reason to believe this was anything but political grandstanding. The executives were not under oath. They are in charge of corporations, which are legally obligated to maximize profits for their shareholders. The Chairman of the Committee, Sen. Pete Dominici, was one of the chief architects of a recently passed energy bill that gave billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil industry. The Republican controlled Congress and the Bush administration are practically in bed with oil companies and will be unlikely to do anything to harm them.

What's really going on? The American public has been spoiled by decades of cheap oil, and the Republicans are scared that the rise in prices will hurt their political prospects in 2006. Clearly, many politicians feel that the best way to win re-election is to talk the talk but completely fail to walk the walk. Sadly, they may be right.

Random Mutations

2005-11-09T16:05:00.000-05:00

The equilibrium of the Creationism-Evolution "debate" has recently been punctuated by several mutations. The trial Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover Area School District has wrapped up, with a verdict expected in December or January. Yesterday, anit-ID [corrected from previous version] candidates gained all eight of the open seats on the Dover Area School Board (Yay!), whose previous endorsement of ID resulted in the Kitzmiller suit. The backwards leaning Kansas School Board once again became the laughing stock of most of the educated world by voting ID-friendly language into a draft of the State's education standards. Finally, Education Week has published a study comparing the states' standards for including evolution in sciences classes, finding that they are very inconsistent, and like most such standards in the U.S., fail to really substantiate and describe core ideas and evidence.

Meanwhile, countries such as India and China continue to produce an increasing number of talented people who have been taught critical thinking, methodological naturalism and respect for evidence. Those people who understand the bedrock theory of biology (ie Evolution) go on to become the leading figures in science, biology, and medicine - and gain all of the money and prestige that go with these high accomplishments.

The likely result if the creationists have their way: lucrative and prestigious jobs in science and medicine will go to foreigners, while poorly educated young Americans will all but drown in the divinely inspired mediocrity forced upon them by the similarly uneducated.

The creationists will reap what they sow, and attempt to lay the blame elsewhere. How surprising!

Some thoughts on abortion legislation

2005-11-09T12:39:00.000-05:00

The Wisconsin assembly and senate recently passed a fetal pain bill mandating that doctors "have to tell women seeking abortions in their 20th week of pregnancy or later that their fetuses might feel pain--an assertion debated in the medical community." These women must be given information on alternative choices to ending the pregnancy and will have to wait 24 hours after being counseled to have the procedure. This law is not only annoying because the assertion of fetal pain hasn't been proven but also because its pretense is misleading. Under the guise of protecting the "innocent" fetus, the law says this: it is illegal for a doctor not to try to coerce a pregnant woman into changing her mind about an abortion.

I had the same thought when I read about Supreme Court nominee Alito's lone dissent in a 1991 case where he argued that the state should force women to notify their husbands about their decision to have an abortion before obtaining the procedure. This opinion is ridiculous and far out of the mainstream but relies on the same assumption: that women are incapable of making decisions on their own that affect the rest of their lives.

Bush Denies Torture in US Prisons

2005-11-08T12:41:00.000-05:00

President Bush claims the US does not torture prisoners, though he would neither confirm nor deny the existence of secret CIA prisons in eastern Europe and Asia. And if the White House didn't have enough to worry about, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on whether Bush stepped over his boundaries regarding a military trial for a former driver of Osama bin Laden, who has been held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp for four years.

The White House continued its threat of vetoing the military spending bill with the proposed amendment banning torture, but it seems like this is one battle the Bush administration is sure to lose.

Supreme Politics II

2005-11-03T12:50:00.000-05:00

Why did religious conservative oppose Harriet Miers? Well, they felt that some of her opinions and speeches indicated that she was not the hard-core right to lifer whom they had expected from Bush, who owes no small part of his success to social conservatives. This, and a touch of well-disguised sexism.

If my suspicion is correct that the Republicans, for cynical political reasons, do not really want Roe v. Wade overturned (see my previous post "Supreme Politics"), it is likely that Bush calculated that Miers would appear hard-line on these issues but really vote in favor of letting Roe stand. But the fundamentalists did not fall for the deception.

With the nomination of Samuel Alito, whose record has apparently earned him the whole-hearted support of conservatives, Bush has a second chance to deceive a large part of his base. Still, if Alito's views on the "super-precedent" status of Roe come out during his hearings, the Republicans' deception could be uncovered. My hunch is that true right-to-lifers will not be satisfied with anyone who does not flat out state that Roe should be overturned and that he/she would vote to do so.

Again, if true, this gives all the more reason to think that like most people in power the Republicans prefer to stand on the top of the heap rather than by their stated principles. Scary!

Leak Scandal? Illegal War? It's Clinton's Fault!

2005-11-03T12:00:00.000-05:00

The grimy machine of partisan hackery just got greased with another dose of WD-40. When Harry Reid called for for a closed Senate session this week he demanded further action on the investigation into the manipulated intelligence used in the mislead-up to the Iraq invasion. One would think that the nation deserves an explanation, no? Well, New York Times conservative hack David Brooks was so scared that his precious GOP might be looking kinda bad for not wanting to swiftly investigate their brave leaders' lies that he pulished an anti-Reid screed accusing the senator of being a conspiracy theorist and then blaming all the phony intel on the Clinton administration.

Granted, la Clintonie was definitely anti-Sadaam, but it was the Bush administration that implied that he was in cahoots with Osama to wipe America off the map. And it was the Bush administration that used reckless falsities to convince the country to support their illegal invasion. Is Brooks getting nervous that the democrats might possibly be forming a real opposition?

How Anti-Abortionists Can Make Themselves Useful

2005-11-03T11:39:00.000-05:00

In today's Guardian Chris McGreal reports that Israel is "deploying a terrifying new tactic against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip by letting loose deafening 'sound bombs' that cause widespread fear, induce miscarriages and traumatise children." This is done by having air force planes "create dozens of sonic booms by breaking the sound barrier at low altitude, sending shockwaves across the territory, often at night." Yesterday, in response to this, "two medical human rights groups asked the Tel Aviv high court to outlaw the use of sound bombs" while doctors at Gaza's Shifa hospital say the booms have forced women to miscarry, increasing miscarriages by 40 percent. One surgeon, Jumaa Saqqa, told the Guardian that one overflight occurred while he was operating. The paper adds, "The Palestinian health ministry estimates the sonic booms have caused at least 20 miscarriages."

So then, where are the "fetal rights" groups on this? If it is their position that zygotes and fetuses are babies, then Isreael's military is using soundwaves that function as aborifacients and kill them. Moreover, it turns out that these sound bombs have been used off and on for years. So where have the "right to lifers" been when their activism could have actually benefitted society? While Humanists are logically concerned that wanted pregnancies are being terminated without consent, this also falls under the category of what anti-abortionists oppose. So I, for one, wouldn't object to their jumping on board this legitimate human rights concern.

I Can't Believe I'm Reading This!

2005-11-01T09:44:00.000-05:00

Are your children growing skeptical of the existence of Santa Claus? Need help in convincing them that he's real? Look no further! SantaMail.org creates a personalized letter - complete with a North Pole, Alaska postmark and holiday stamp - from none other than Santa Claus himself, and it can be sent to your kids just in time for Christmas. Over 100,000 Santa letters have been sent since the launch of the website three years ago - proving that thousands of parents are willing to go the extra mile to lie their children for no good reason.

A Christian Utopia?

2005-10-27T11:40:00.000-04:00

The good folks over at Christian Exodus are planning to gradually establish South Carolina as a Christian Utopia in which every aspect of inhabitants' lives is governed by biblical principles. They eventually plan to ceceed from the US, forming their own Christian Nation. Now, being the smart and well educated people they are, I'm sure they're aware of what has happened in all sorts of other religiously motivated utopic experiments, such as those in Salem, MA, and Waco, TX. I'm also sure that they're aware of the historical and current examples of opression that occurs when a single state-sponsored religion controls even the most intimate aspects of peoples' lives. And finally, they are no doubt aware that, at least in the general American public, religious belief correlates with, shall we say, poor behavior.

Despite the poor history of utopic experiments, the Bible will tell them everything they need to know about good governance - from what to teach (and more importantly not teach) their kids to how to design Christian-friendly legal forms. How can they go wrong, really?

Cheney Wants CIA Exempt from Abuse Ban

2005-10-25T16:53:00.000-04:00

In a defiant act against the 90 to 9 Senate vote of the "McCain Amendment," recently introduced earlier this month that would ban abusive treatment against detainees held in U.S. prison camps, Vice President Dick Cheney and CIA director Porter J. Goss reportedly requested that the CIA be exempt from the ban, citing Bush's need for "maximum flexibility" in handling the war on terror. McCain reportedly rejected the exemption, which will likely lead to an intense debate between the White House and the Senate over this issue.

Also, the ACLU recently reported 21 detainees who were killed during and after interrogations in U.S. prison camps both in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the report, at least one was smothered by military officials in, and another from "multiple blunt force injuries" in 2003.

I find it a little funny that Cheney and Goss thought they can get around McCain's amendment this way. McCain quickly figured out that with the CIA's exemption, his amendment is pointless. I only hope that the majority of America realize it as well, and with their support, the Senate will stand up to the Bush administration again.

Screed #1

2005-10-20T16:40:00.000-04:00

I am not special. The universe does not care about me. There is no big man in the sky in whose image I was made and who is watching over me or answering my hopes or telling me how I should behave. I am made from the same decaying matter as everything else. My ancestors, only a few thousand generations ago, were a bunch of flea bitten apes. I have no eternal soul, and eventually my brain will be worm food and my consciousness will be obliterated, with no hope of an afterlife.

And I deny these facts or become emotional about them because......??? I mean, imagine how much of a narcissistic, insecure, needy wimp I would be if my sense of self-worth, the entire significance of my life, and any hope for the future depended on a belief that I was created by a deity and that said deity cares about me. Imagine how bad I would feel about myself if I believed that my natural desires as a person were unquestionably sinful, and that I ought to frequently bow my head in supplication to a higher power. Imagine if, in vain-glorious hopes of an afterlife, I was unable to focus on soaking up all that my current life has to offer.

Personally, I cannot see how religious delusions do anything positive for those who believe them, and as I'm sure you can tell, my suspicion is that most such beliefs ultimately play off of and encourage insecurities and self-doubt. This is hardly the kind of thing that would lead me to flourishing or "the good life."

At least for me, I think Bertrand Russell said it best: "I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue."

Please Sir, Could I Have Some More?

2005-10-18T14:54:00.000-04:00

Foreign Workers in Iraq Served Gruel to Fuel Contractors' Coffers

Low-wage workers from poor Asian countries such as India, Pakistan, and the Philippines are helping government contractors like Halliburton and Bechtel increase their bottom line by enduring dangerous conditions in Iraq. This cheap labor force provides the "grunt work" associated with the reconstruction effort but, according to many former American contractors returning to the United States, the foreign workers "frequently sleep in crowded trailers and wait outside in 100-degree-plus heat to be served "slop."" The foreign workers often perform manual labor for more than 10 hours, 7 days a week, with no overtime pay and inadequate medical care. In addition, these workers aren't provided with adequate safety protection for a war zone. According to a former administrator for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, American contractors were "walking around with helmets and vests because of an alert" while the foreign workers were "just looking at us wondering what's going on."

But is any of this really surprising? By looking at Halliburton's record, it appears to be business as usual.

When it comes to security, the plebians are S.O.L.

2005-10-14T09:57:00.000-04:00

We all know it helps to have friends in high places. But for New York's well-connected last week, it could have saved their lives. According to the New York Daily News, at least two emails were sent to "a select crowd of business and art executives" on October 3--that's three days before the city's bigwigs decided to warn the public. In fact, one of these friendly alerts was timestamped 90 minutes before Mayor Bloomberg was fully briefed on the supposed terrorist threat.

Despite the fact that the threat has been discredited, it says a lot that the folks at Homeland Security see fit to tell their NYC buddies when to take a long weekend. And it's great to know that DHS cares: "We have looked into them, but do not consider them to be of great significance," a DHS spokesperson said of the emails.

How reassuring.

Part of Harriet Miers Life is Her Religion is it Part of Her Legal Thinking as Well?

2005-10-14T07:53:00.000-04:00

I find it humorous, in a dark sort of way, that while we'll probably be denied any paper trail that could explain Harriet Miers legal thinking on the grounds that it would compromise national security, her evangelical faith is offered up to shore up the conservative base. A representative of that base, James Dobson, founder of Focus on Family spoke with Karl Rove about Mier and reported Rove told him "she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life," but Dobson denied getting any assurances from the White House that she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. See CNN

It may not be an assurance but it's a lot better than a kick in the pants. "Almost universally pro-life." If that isn't a promise or a proof of passing a litmus test, I'm not sure what it's supposed to be. Outrageous, is what I'm inclined to say.

Anti-Commie Statue

2005-10-12T13:50:00.000-04:00

This past Thursday the National Capital Planning Commission unanimously approved the design for a ninety-square-foot "Victims of Communism" monument to be built on public land in Washington, D.C., in view of the Capitol. The central feature will be a bronze "Goddess of Democracy," similar to the papier-mache and Styrofoam statue erected by pro-democracy students in Beijing's Tiananmen Square during 1989 demonstrations. The Associated Press reports, "The memorial will honor an estimated 100 million people killed or tortured under communist rule" around the world.

Lee Edwards, who is a fellow with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has served as chairman of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, the group that twelve years ago started lobbying for the project. They have already raised about 75 percent of the needed funds. Actual construction is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2006, with dedication in the fall--pending final approval this coming December.

Well, I'm certainly no friend of communism. That ideology has caused a tremendous amount of suffering and death. But I'm forced to ask: Is this whole thing political? And I'm forced to answer: Of course it is!

After all, nobody seems to be planning a memorial to the victims of fascism (which would include those who died in Ethiopia and in the Spanish Civil War prior to World War II). And you know that we'd never hear the end of it if some leftist think tank decided to raise money to honor the victims of imperialism or of robber baron capitalism. Moreover, I'm not aware of any statue in the works to honor the victims of faith-based persecution--which would take us back centuries.

But forget about consistency and fairness. This is America, where almost any pressure group can get almost any statue erected in the national capital, provided there is sufficient money and politics on its side. Pardon my cynicism, but the history of how the pendulum swings can be seen in the dedication dates of the various masses of marble.

Supreme Politics

2005-10-10T13:50:00.000-04:00

President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has generated some interesting political fallout. As is expected, a lot of this is about her stand on abortion.

Although the President has stated that he does not have a "litmus test" for nominees, he has said that Miers shares his "judicial philosophy" of "strict constructioism". This is clearly a lie or an attempt to obscure the truth using political code words. Bush had selection criteria based on more than Miers' qualifications (which BTW have been called into question by many conservatives) and undoubtedly picked Miers because he knows that she will vote the conservative line on almost all issues. Indeed, Karl Rove's assurances to James Dobson (of Focus on The Family) that Miers is an appropriate pick for the religious right amount to an admission that she has passed some kind of litmus test - most likely one revolving around abortion and similar issues. Despite this, some conservatives are still concerned that with Miers' lack of judicial experience it is hard to tell if she is sufficiently conservative.

But, along with some conservatives, and some liberals, I am becoming suspicious that Rove is employing an incredibly cynical and Machiavellian tactic: contrary to want they have been suggesting, Bush and Rove do not in fact want Roe v. Wade overturned. Why? Because a reversal of Roe v. Wade would cause a great deal of dissent and reaction, energizing the left and ultimately damaging the long-term Republican grip on power that Rove is trying to put it place. For them, Roe v. Wade is what puts the oomph in the engine that drives the religious right - the Republicans prefer to let the case stand as a rallying point rather than pyrrhic victory.

All this gives me yet more reason to believe that the Republican party cares more about its own power than any of its principles. Yikes! If anyone has any other conclusion that can reasonably be drawn from this kind of thing, I'd like to hear it.

Prisoners' Rights

2005-10-07T13:35:00.000-04:00

In a challenge to the September 9th US appeals court ruling declaring Bush's authority to hold US prisoners with links to al-Qaeda "indefinitely," the Senate voted 90-9 last Wednesday to support an amendment preventing "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" against prisoners held by the US. Introduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a former POW himself, the overall military bill is expected to be voted on today. Bush officials have suggested that a veto would be recommended if the bill includes the new amendment.

With endless allegations of prisoner abuse and torture, particularly from the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, both Republicans and Democrats were courageous to overwhemingly stand behind prisoners' rights. The message is clear: Bush does not have limitless authority in times of war.

Nazis? Commies? Slavery?

2005-10-06T10:37:00.000-04:00

The White House war-propaganda machine went into full thrust this morning in an attempt to quell growing public opposition to the Iraq occupation. In his speech, Bush pulled out the usual bag of tricks to insist that the cause is just: he compared the bad guys to Hitler and their goals to those of communism and slavery. Islamic militants, he said, seek to "enslave whole nations and intimidate the world," and their goal is to "establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia." But the president's assertions avoid the fact that many of the insurgents in Iraq are Iraqis.
The president insists that the United States will remain steadfast and be victorious. But what is that victory? A perpetual, bloody, and illegal war? Someone should tell the president that his scare tactics only work with people who already believe the cause is just.

Constructive Criticism

2005-10-03T12:23:00.000-04:00

Humanists, scientists, and many others are concerned that the teaching of "intelligent design" in science classrooms will be a huge leap backwards towards a less educated and more superstitious populace. But, if the criticisms of IDers is taught along with the replies for Darwinists, teaching ID may be able to increase students' critical reasoning ability.

Richard Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker", for example, is a constant dialogue between creationists and evolutionary theorists. Dawkins raises criticisms from the IDers, and in responding to them clarifies many popular misconceptions about Darwin's theory and shows how ID will always fail to explain anything. Imagine that science teachers were able to compare and contrast evolution and ID in this way, ultimately dispelling students' poor understanding of Darwinism and showing how it is much more reasonable and better supported than ID.

Will this kind of thing happen? I'm not sure. On the one hand, if the court allows criticism of Darwin to be taught, it stands to reason that it should allow criticism of ID to be taught. Since such classes would likely be taught by biologists in favor Darwin, one would hope that they could make a strong case that ID is garbage. On the other hand, such a development would be an unintended consequence for IDers, and they would do everything to fight it. Secondly, students' young minds may not always be capable of understanding the complexity of well-developed evolutionary theory. We'll just have to wait and see.

Ultimately, though, I'm not very optimistic.

New Jurist

2005-10-03T07:55:00.000-04:00

Bush is naming White House counsel Harriet Miers as his nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Her credentials other than never having been a judge and working for Bush, seem impecible. I almost want to weep; it seems assured we will have another conservative that we know almost nothing about joining the court.

And this court is due to here several cases that will affect this nation and or particular interest
The following is from Cnn.com

abortion cases from the "partial birth" in the spring to the New Hampshire law forcing minors to get parental permission before having an abortion unless the woman's life is in danger.

The Oregon law allowing physician-assisted suicide is scheduled for the second day of session. The Bush administration is fighting against state rights on this one since he only supports state right's if they're religiously right leaning state rights. The actuall legal claim the administration is making is that has said Oregon's law conflicts with the federal government's power over how drugs are prescribed and administered.

A church-state battle concerning religious services that use a hallucinogenic tea, containing a banned drug.

A free-speech dispute over whether universities opposed to the Pentagon's policy on homosexuals in uniform may ban military recruiters from campus.

When and whether new DNA evidence can be used to help grant death row inmates new legal hearings to prove their innocence.

Whether police can search homes for drugs when occupants disagree over consent.

In addition to the "partial-birth" case, the justices could consider:

Whether public school children can continue being led in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Various terrorism-related cases dealing with whether Americans held by the military in the United States as "enemy combatants" deserve a chance to appeal in civilian courts; and the use of military tribunals to try suspected foreign terrorist suspects.

The terminator terminates gay marriage in California

2005-09-30T20:28:00.000-04:00

In a surprisingly milk-toast (or just plain bland given the subject matter)article The Washington post reported Arnold Schwarzenegger's veto of The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. And why I was surprised that it was easier to find more links to news coverage by googling "Schwarzenegger" than "The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act" I don't know, but check out MTV and the BBC

I actually find Schwarzenegger's explanation of his veto more confusing that having a law that gives people the right to marry. I'm also intringued by an elected official saying that other elected officials don't represent the will of the people but then I'm not an elected official so I don't know how that game works. I guess it's only other elected officials who don't represent the will of the people.
And just think how many more Bush judges we can get on the bench before we know that 50% of the people aren't being represented by the judiciary at all.

And all of this is about whether two people who love each other can be recognized by the government. Some day we'll all look back on this and laugh...well laugh nervously and change the subject.

Chief Justice John Roberts

2005-09-29T12:06:00.000-04:00

It's been done see Senate Confirms Roberts As Chief Justice or Roberts confirmed as chief justice . It's done and it's scary.

It proves that you don't have to answer questions from the senate and you can blame your own morals on the morality of your client. Nevermind that you took your client's case or their money or whatever. When your a lawyer you can say you have no morals you only argue your client's case and get away with it. Why can't lawyers "Just say no" to clients, even turn them down if they disagree with them? I don't follow this reasoning but we as a country have certainly bought it.

I worry now for women, minorities and this country in general. This happened too fast and too easily. Was Katrina the Rita the reason? Or did we generally not respond enough to really make it clear that almost 50% of us don't support the Bush doctrine?

Protest? What protest?

2005-09-28T13:17:00.000-04:00

I've been wondering why there was so little coverage of the antiwar demonstration I attended this past weekend. An estimated 100,000 to 300,000 people turned out to demand the end of the occupation in Iraq, which I thought would be big news. But when I looked at the coverage given by major news outlets like the Washington Post, the New York Times, and CNN, not only did I see scant coverage of the peace demonstration, I saw equal coverage given to the counter-protesters, whose numbers were at best 0.004% of the number of peace demonstrators! Michael I. Niman gives a good explanation as to why the media downplays such events in his latest column.

Alternative Energy Rising

2005-09-28T09:24:00.000-04:00

Today, in his plenary speech to the 18th World Petroleum Congress being held in Johannesburg, South Africa, Worldwatch Institute President Christopher Flavin declared global energy markets to be at a "tipping point." By this he meant that "new energy sources" are "ready to begin replacing oil and other fossil
fuels." In his speech, heard by 5,000 delegates, including oil industry leaders and energy ministers of various countries, Flavin went on to say, "Energy markets are about to experience a seismic shift. The question for oil executives is whether you're in the oil business or the energy business." He spoke of a current 20 to 30 percent annual growth rate in the use of biofuels, wind power, and solar energy "compared with growth rates of 2 percent
for oil and gas." His remarks were based on Worldwatch Institute research.

Those of us watching energy politics from a more or less cynical perspective have often said that the global energy picture won't change simply because it's the best thing for the planet and humanity's long-term survival, it will change when it's more immediately profitable to do so. Perhaps we're now getting to that point. And, if so, perhaps it isn't already too late. We must never forget that, from the perspective of geologic time, Homo sapiens is still a new species and therefore might yet prove to be an unsuccessful one. How we handle our energy politics may well tell the tale.

Here we go again.....

2005-09-26T11:20:00.000-04:00

The Evolution - Creation controversy is flaring up for the umpteenth time, with a new lawsuit beginning over whether so-called "intelligent design" ought to be taught or mentioned in public school biology courses. The statement at issue is the following:

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in theory exist for which there is no evidence.. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin.. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."

Most of the shoddy arguments in favor of ID (or rather against evolution, since ID has virtually no positive theory of its own) and the knock-down replies from Darwinists should be familiar to those who have been following both sides of the issue. But the last sentence of this statement, urging students "to keep and open mind" should be of interest too.

Keeping an open mind is a double edged sword. On the one hand, we should be open to new ideas, ways of thinking and experiences. But on the other we should also be constantly rejecting all sorts of claims and ideas as stupid, inappropriate, unsupported by evidence, or immoral. To have a truly open mind would be to succumb to the deluge of advertising, poor reasoning, superstition, appeals to wishful thinking and emotions, and religious or political propaganda, all of which bombard us incessantly in our daily lives.

One of the many things that IDers are clearly forgetting or ignoring is that getting to the truth and having a set of reasonably well supported beliefs is as much about rejecting false claims as it is about accepting true ones. Creationism, flat-earthism, belief in the ether, Ptolemaic cosmology.... all these things were rejected in favor of more reasonable theories better in accord with available evidence.

With this in mind, education should be about teaching students to have the right balance between accepting well supported claims and rejecting unreasonable ones. "Intelligent Design" clearly opens students' minds to a flood of unsupported ideas, violating this balance in a very egregious way.

The Bible and Public Schools

2005-09-23T15:33:00.000-04:00

The Bible Literacy Project, a nonprofit based in Fairfax, VA, have recently introduced "The Bible and Its Influence," a textbook to be used in public schools to present the Bible's "literary and historic qualities."

Textbooks like these are certainly helpful for college students majoring in religion, who have a strong interest in having a more in-depth look at the historical and social influence of the Bible in history. More so, biblical knowledge is valuable in understanding the many religious allusions in English novels or historical events where religion plays a prominent role.

But does it need to be taught in public schools, especially when the majority of religious children can get the basic stories straight from Sunday school? Are we really neglecting Humanist and secular children, whom often read and understand the Bible on their own in order to come to their nontheistic understanding of the world? I'm curious to know the percentage of students who find themselves "lost" in our education system simply because they haven't read the Bible.

Also, I'm skeptical of the claim in which the reviewers of the book hailed from "evangelical, mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish and secular experts." Upon reviewing the textbook's list of contributors, the "secular experts" are nowhere to be found. In fact, the website doesn't claim at all that secular experts were considered during review.

The basic idea is to keep the study of religion specific to colleges and universities, where an in-depth look at the historical and social significance of the Bible and Western religion is more useful to you if this is your interest. It's hard enough teaching middle and high school students everything they need to know in the core subjects of math, science, history and english. There's simply no room for teaching the Bible in school.

Humanism and the Roberts Confirmation

2005-09-22T13:55:00.000-04:00

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13 to 5 in favor of John Roberts as the next chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Three of the eight Democrats on the committee voted with the majority. Next week the matter will go before the full Senate, with the 44 Senate Democrats seemingly "split on whether they can, or should, mount even symbolic opposition to Roberts," according to the Associated Press.

In the light of this development, take a look at today's "Bad Kitty" editorial cartoon at the Center for American Progress. This gives a clear sense of the concerns Humanists have with the Roberts confirmation.

I specifically draw your attention to the issue of the right to privacy. While it was mentioned during the confirmation hearings that the case of Griswold v. Connecticut established a right, on privacy grounds, of married people to use birth control, it was later made clear that Baird v. Eisenstadt was the case that truly established the right to privacy, actually changing laws and practices in many states that had prohibited unmarrieds from having access to birth control information and devices.

Why is this important to Humanists?

First, because it ought to be important to everyone. Baird is the landmark case that removed the faith-based legal taboo against birth control. And those of such faith never took the defeat lightly. To this day they want the ban reinstated. Those who oppose abortion rights often also oppose the right to birth control access. And they have no plan to stop their efforts to turn back the clock.

Second, because Bill Baird, the man who fought the case, and who had been jailed for disseminating birth control information and devices, is a Humanist. Americans owe their very right to privacy to a man who the American Humanist Association rightly named a Humanist Pioneer. The Baird decision was made in 1972, a mere thirty-three years ago. That's how recent that right is. Yet so many think it's always been that way. Such ignorance in the face of today's vote leaves many unprepared for the possibility that a right so newly recognized can be taken away. And if Baird falls so falls Roe v. Wade, a decision made the very next year in which Baird was quoted six times.

The United States is a freer nation because of the stand taken by a lone Humanist. It will become less free if that legacy is forgotten and that precident overturned by a new ultra-conservative court.

Nepal and Human Rights

2005-09-21T10:41:00.000-04:00

Though there are some who would claim that cultural traditions in various parts of the world should trump efforts to establish universal standards of human rights, Nepal may be a case in point that there's another way to look at this. That is, if the concept of human rights is just another example of Western cultural imperialism, it's an example well liked by some Nepalese.

On September 14 Nepal's Supreme Court declared that chhaupadi will be illegal in one month and ordered that laws be written in three months abolishing the discriminatory cultural practice. Chhaupadi has been an enforced custom where menstruating women, viewed as unclean, are forced to spend their menstrual periods hidden away in cow sheds.

But Nepalese reform efforts don't stop there. Yesterday in Katmandu, hundreds of marching women broke through police lines as they demanded that King Gyanendra restore democracy in the country.

From developments like these around the world it should become clear that human rights are often about helping the oppressed and disposessed. And if certain cultural traditions are behind their reduced status, people are often ready to opt for liberation and dump tradition.

But the road can be rocky. The warrior class among my Celtic ancestors didn't much fancy the Romans outlawing their traditional practices of head hunting and human sacrifice, but I'm sure that would-be victims appreciated it. And Celtic culture became the better as a result.

In the case of Nepal, however, the changes are coming from within, which is always to be preferred. We need to guard against those politicians, hungry for control of oil (for example), who would exploit such noble goals as a phony pretext for maintaining a war of occupation in a foreign land. Advocacy of human rights isn't a blank check for military adventures. But it is a humanistic cause worthy of spreading by peaceful means.

Reid Opposes Roberts

2005-09-21T10:07:00.000-04:00

Yesterday Harry Reid (D, Nevada) said he would oppose the confirmation of John Roberts as chief justice, an action which may sway other Democrats. This is refreshing, as some of the media coverage has been disappointingly uncritical of the nominee. There seems to be this attitude that "oh, he'll be fine," and "he can't be all that bad," but those who say "well gee, I don't really have a good reason not to vote yes," have it backwards. When you hire someone, you don't just figure that you haven't a good reason not to hire them. You look for a proven track record. And from the track record we've seen--not to mention what the White House won't let us see--Roberts looks like a hard-core conservative ideologue who calls women's equality measures "pernicious" and illegal immigrants "illegal amigos."

Sure, he says he's not an ideologue and that he has a philosophy of judicial restraint. But will he uphold the constitution? Will he defend women's reproductive rights? Well, we don't really know. And that isn't good enough. We Humanists can't afford another shoo-in like Scalia's 98-0 confirmation in 1986. We may not be able to stop Roberts, but a la-ti-da attitude won't help.

I think Ted Kennedy said it best:

"This is really a leap of faith, isn't it? I mean, I think there are those that took the leap in terms of the war, there were those that took the leap in terms of taxes, and now they're being invited to take the leap again in terms of Judge Roberts, and...I don't think I'm going to be among them."

On Judge Roberts

2005-09-20T14:54:00.000-04:00

Unfortunately I did not have much time to listen to the Roberts confirmation hearings, but it is clear to me from the small sample that I did hear that Roberts is very intelligent, reasonably committed to stability and precedent, and politically shrewd. While his testimony was very knowledgeable and apparently sincere, it often had a degree of evasiveness that, on the one hand, prevented Democrats from getting any kind of deal breaker out of him, and on the other prevented Conservatives from getting much to suggest that Roberts would be the One to save the Court from its liberal leanings.

Frankly, I do not see Roberts as such a great threat to Humanist / Liberal values as some of my colleagues here at the AHA do. If Roberts does indeed have a philosophy of judicial restraint, he should not be inclined either to overturn decisions such as Roe v. Wade or to outlaw rights and practices that have been generally accepted by the legal establishment and the American public. And although Roberts is likely to be skeptical of the existence of implicit rights within the constitution, his testimony suggests that he is less rigid in his approach to the law than are originalists like Justice Scalia, who views the Constitution as some kind of sacred, unchanging, and exhaustive text (a way of thinking no doubt imprinted on his young mind by a rigorous Catholic education). In short, Roberts' views may be more flexible than either Liberals or Conservatives have thought.

In the end I'm not quite sure what I think of Roberts', given that I cannot know what cases will come before his Court and how it will rule. Moreover, many of the issues the Court will likely face are so fraught with complexity that it is hard to see how exactly a "liberal", "conservative" or "Humanist" perspective would be brought to bear on them. Reasonable people can disagree on most, if not all of the issues that will come before the Court. Whatever happens, we as Humanists should do what we can to be an active and reasonable voice in the debates.

Substance Addiction: Faith or Biology?

2005-09-20T14:02:00.000-04:00

From at least the decade of the 1980s Humanists have been active in developing or promoting secular alternatives to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and other faith-based substance-abuse programs. In particular, the American Humanist Association once made Rational Recovery (http://www.rational.org/) a corporate division and launched it into the national limelight. Since then, that effort branched into two independent programs, the second being SMART Recovery (http://www.smartrecovery.org/), based on the Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy of 1971 Humanist of the Year Albert Ellis (http://www.rebt.org/). Numerous local Humanist organizations run SMART Recovery groups. And over the years the Humanist magazine has kept readers apprised of nontheistic alternatives to AA (http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/Fletcher.html).

The goal in all this wasn't to replace AA but, rather, to expand the range of available choices. When it comes to addictions treatment and care, one size doesn't fit all. Yes, the psychological makeup of some people seems to require that they see the problem as bigger than themselves and lean on some form of "higher power." That's AA's specialty. But that program's success and failure rate make it clear that dependency in order to end dependency isn't everyone's cup of tea. To put it bluntly, many would rather take personal responsibility, end their addiction, and get on with their lives instead of using a lifelong addiction to their recovery group as a substitute for lifelong addiction to drugs or alcohol.

But it was inevitable that, with scientific advances in the field of neurology, sooner or later pharmaceuticals would emerge as an alternative to both faith and self-reliance. And now they are here, with more on the way. Recent reports speak of naltrexone, "a drug that can block the brain chemicals that make alcoholics feel good after a drink" (according to the the Washington Post's September 19th issue of the Express). One patient claimed a complete cure after only three days. The newest drug, Campral, which went on the market in the United States this past January, is said to reverse brain-chemistry imbalances brought on by drinking and to ease withdrawal symptoms. On the immediate horizon is Vivitrex, a reformulation of naltrexone, and no doubt there will be others. And, as with the various psychological interventions, the new message is the same: one size doesn't fit all.

My point is that, as science uncovers the biochemical bases of behavior, we will be seeing this sort of thing more and more. The goal is to remove as much of the guesswork as possible from medical issues. It is to take us from casting out demons, to curing sin, to leaning on a "higher power," to psychological interventions, to biochemical and other physiological interventions.

I'm not trying to push cure-all drugs here. The mind still matters. And I recognize that not all drugs work well, some are harmful, and not all work the same for each person. But I am noting that natural science looks for natural solutions and that scientific materialism works to get at the material factors that underly the often intractable problems that beset us. This process has constituted one of the greatest success stories of the humanistic outlook and has often exposed conservative religion as one of the greatest stumbling blocks. Substance addiction isn't a character flaw (though a character flaw may or may not have gotten one addicted in the first place). It is a medical problem.

One day we will look back in horror at our time, astonished that people once actually treated substance abuse with prayers and jails instead of with compassion, reason, and science.

Hurricane "Helpers" Rake in the Bucks

2005-09-15T13:53:00.000-04:00

This week there have been a few reports about large private contractors cashing in on the money appropriated by the government for relief and reconstruction after the Hurricane Katrina disaster. According to the New York Times, this

"crisis atmosphere and the open federal purse are a bonanza for lobbyists and private companies and are likely to lead to the contract abuses, cronyism and waste that numerous investigations have uncovered in post-war Iraq."

Hopefully, some will remember that because a lot of our resources were in Iraq, we were short on resources here at home when we needed them--resources like National Guard troops, equipment, and of course, all of the money that could have been spent preparing for one of the most predictable disasters in our history. Did we shell out so much money to these private contractors only to get ourselves into a situation in which we'll shell it out to them again?

Progressives should keep a watchful eye on who benefits from the reconstruction of New Orleans. Chances are, it won't be the victims.

Not One Nation 'Under God'

2005-09-15T13:08:00.000-04:00

I'm compelled to address a comment made by Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Council, after the court ruling on the Pledge:

"This history of the Pledge of Allegiance illustrates that the phrase 'under God' is a permissible acknowledgement rather than an establishment of religion. If the Pledge established or tended to establish a religion, then that would have happened during the past 50 years of its existence."

Using this argument is one of the worst of its kind. The McCarthy era clearly was a dangerous time for anyone who opposed the government on anything, not just the Pledge. Having this Pledge doesn't mean we've agreed with it for 50 years. It means that we lived in a time when it was dangerous to stand up against the growing conservatism in the US.

Also, we need to remember why 'under God' was put in the Pledge in the first place: for the sole purpose of distinguishing Americans from atheistic communists, thereby establishing that all Americans ascribe to a religion that involves a belief in God. Mr. Staver is completely wrong; the Pledge has always established a religion since 'under God' became a part of it.

Well, Mr. Staver, in the 50 years of the 'under God' pledge's existence, we are challenging it NOW. And we have a right to challenge it as Humanists who do not ascribe to the belief that we are one nation 'under God.' Why should I, along with millions of other atheists/agnostics/humanists, be forced to subject myself to a test of my patriotism and religiosity by saying two words I don't believe in?

Tough Issues for the Court and for Humanists

2005-09-13T16:27:00.000-04:00

Not surprisingly, the most controversial and reported on topic in John Roberts' Senate confirmation hearings has been that of abortion, while a few other (and no less important) issues such as voting rights, the relationship between the Federal and State governments, and the power of the President to act above the law during wartime have made their cameo appearances.

Legal, scholarly and cultural debates (or often plain old fights) about these topics have, to a certain extent, already taken place, and they will no doubt continue to do so. But instead of looking to the past for issues on which Roberts' views will be important to Humanists, what if we look instead to the future? With what developments in knowledge, technology, and culture will the next Chief Justice have to deal?

On August 28, a fascinating if somewhat speculative piece by Jeffrey Rosen appeared in the New York Times Sunday Magazine asking these questions. Rosen covers several possible answers, some of which are these:

DNA Based Affirmative Action - Enough said.
Genetic Screening and Embryo selection - With the increasing knowledge of DNA and reproduction, doctors will one day be able to "screen" embryos according the wishes of parents, implaning only those with the desired traits. The result: so-called "designer babies". Will the court view laws restricting this kind of practice as a legitimate interest of the state or as an unjustified intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of the parents?
Brain Fingerprinting - To some extent we have been able to correlate physical brain-states with their corresponding mental states or behavioral tendencies. When these techniques mature, and we are able to develop a "brain profile" for criminals or terrorists, a great many challenging ethical, legal and scientific questions will arise. Will the Court view use of brain scans as legitimate evidence for establishing guilt, intent or other legally relevant facts, or will it say that such scans consitute a forced self-incrimination?

Though these things may seem overly futuristic now, the future has a habit of creeping up on us mighty fast. As Humanists, we have the resources to come to grips with these issues in a reasoned and ethical way, though I would urge us to start thinking about these difficult issues now rather than later.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist Dies

2005-09-04T18:47:00.000-04:00

I've been reading all about this today. Certainly we as Humanists extend our sympathy to his family and also mourn the loss to the court and to the country. As the Washington Post described him:

Although Rehnquist and his fellow conservative justices often acted in the name of judicial restraint, it is perhaps more accurate to say that they showed an active court could serve conservative policy ends as well as liberal ones.

During Rehnquist's tenure, the Supreme Court has arguably expanded its role in American life, frequently striking down laws passed by Congress, subjecting the president to independent counsel investigations and private lawsuits and, in 2000, settling a presidential election.

Although the full scope of the Rehnquist counterrevolution is still much debated, legal scholars already rank him among the court's great chief justices.

However, we must also be mindful that there are now two vacancies to be filled, and that the these new appointees will have profound impacts on our daily lives and our children's lives. We must all work now and in the coming months to ensure are rights and the rights of those we love our protected and not diminished. That the constitution of this country is upheld so that all Americans are treated fairly and all can enjoy their rights, not just those who fit the mold of what is acceptable to the majority.

We wish to pay all due respect and tribute to the service that Justice Rehnquist gave this country, but the times are to critical to sit idly by at this sad occasion.

Lisa

Scientist have completed Chimp Genetic Map

2005-09-04T18:22:00.000-04:00

Scientists determined a chimpanzee named Clint's genome sequence, according to the Washington Post. It takes 3 billion bits of genetic code to make a chimp, humankind's closest cousin and allowed scientist to identify the 40 million molecular changes that separate the two species and pinpointed the mere 250,000 that seem to be the most responsible for the differences between chimps and humans.

What humanist and maybe some school boards should also take note of is the following:

Acknowledging recent challenges by proponents of "intelligent design," a proposition that posits the need for an intelligent creator, several scientists said the genome study offered elegant confirmation of Darwin's vision of evolution.

One analysis, for example, showed that the accumulation of deleterious mutations in the human and chimp genomes is greater than in the mouse and rat genomes in just the proportion predicted by one of the mathematical corollaries of the theory of evolution.

"I can't imagine Darwin hoping for a stronger confirmation of his ideas," said Robert H. Waterston, who led the Washington University team

Perhaps we can continue to build on the science of biology with this discovery and teach this in our high schools and give up on the proposition of intelligent design at least until it has as strong a confirmation of it's ideas being discovered and reported by respected media.

New Orleans-If God Didn't Do it, Who Did?

2005-09-03T08:38:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Lapin is the ever present token Jew in conservative Christian circles, invited in for cover on account of his quirky far right views. Now the Rabbi is trying to explain how God allows the threat of horrid disasters like this in order to keep us on our toes. But there is a real answer to Lapin's question, "If God Didn't Do it, Who Did?"

Here's a hint: It's the same as the answer to "Who ordered, against the recommendation of the Army corps of engineers, that the U.S. abandon plans to study how to prevent hurricane related disasters in New Orleans?"

Religious Group links Katrina to "Southern Decadence" Party

2005-09-01T12:38:00.000-04:00

I'm almost speechless but here's the link to the Repent America Press Release. You've got to admit the timing is right even if the actual damage is hitting Mississippi pretty bad as well if not worse. Here is what Repent America's director had to say:

"Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city," stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage. "From 'Girls Gone Wild' to 'Southern Decadence,' New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. From the devastation may a city full of righteousness emerge," he continued.

I wish I had more time to delve into this as perusing the website at first made me think I was at Landover Baptist. But I think this is for real.

Lisa

Treating atheism as a religion

2005-08-29T11:51:00.000-04:00

The relevant question in evaluating the recent 7th Circuit Court ruling Kaufman v. McCaughtry is, "Should reasonable public accommodation be made to make allowances for people's deeply held convictions, be they atheist or religious in origin?" While those who say no probably oppose the ruling, I'd argue that the 7th Circuit Court ruling is good news for many in the community of reason because it opens the door to equal treatment for theists and nontheists alike.

The Wisconsin correctional institution should have had a separate form for atheists to establish groups instead of making Kaufman use a form titled "Request for New Religious Practice," but Kaufman's win is a step toward broadening the government's approach beyond strictly religious accommodations. It brings us a step closer to Supreme Court precedent, which indicates that government cannot endorse one religion over another religion, nor can it endorse religion in general over non-religion.

Will fundamentalists use this as grounds to repeat their ridiculous cry that atheism and secular humanism are religions taught in public schools? Sure, but their efforts will continue to fail because they cannot point to anything in public education that is specifically atheist or secular humanist.

Ideally, we'd take American Athiests approach and demand recognition of atheists as atheists now, without having to go under the guise of existing standards for religious persons and groups. Ideally both religions and life philosophies would now be categorized as "lifestances." But since we're in a markedly less than ideal environmentnt today, this ruling takes us closer to our goal.

Bolton's Extremism

2005-08-02T10:01:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post showed its increasingly conservative leanings today when it castigated Democrats for complaining about Bush's recess appointment of John Bolton saying, "Having thwarted the usual process under which the Senate gets to vote on a president's nominee, it takes a bit of chutzpah for Democrats now to cry foul at Mr. Bush's decision to exercise his other option."

The Post editors conveniently ignore that the Senate's failure to garnish enough support for a up-or-down vote on Bolton might indicate that Bolton was a unacceptable choice for the UN Ambassador position. Is it the Democrats' fault that Bush appointed a partisan, UN hater for the top UN post? The divider's divider, Bolton is a isolationist paleoconservative, and as Brooke Lierman says, "He has been called a 'treaty-killer' and a 'guided missile.' He is known as the 'undersecretary for chads' and the 'anti-diplomat.' Recently he called concerns over how many nuclear weapons North Korea possesses 'quibbling.' And, former Sen. Jesse Helms thinks of him as 'the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at the gates of Armageddon.'"

another day,our patriotic empire

2005-07-11T12:45:00.000-04:00

I came across this blog entry in Another Day in the Empire in a mailing list. The article talks about the hard choice facing the british and american governments since the server hosting the al-qal3ah.com, a site which posted a claim taking responsibility for the terror attacks in London, is hosted in Texas. If we are going to prove that we aren't soft on terror shouldn't we bomb this obvious terroist supporter? And of course the domain name was purchased through Tucows (I looked it up through a "Whois search") is a Canadian company with US offices. Maybe we should bomb Cananda or at least like South Park says Blame Canada? Whether you think there is humor or not in the author's description of the situation he does drives home the basic premise behind this war : We create what we call acceptable casualty levels by using shock and awe attacks and targetted bombings but what did we gain in those attacks?

In reality given the current Patriot Act laws, it isn't a bombing run but data raid that may be the threat for theTexas company. The US government is much more likely to try to gather the client records of this company to see if there are any other terrorists using this host (although I think section 505 of the Patriot act, the section that would allow the feds to gather ISP records without judicial oversight) has been overturned but you can always check out the ACLU's Patriot act page for more information or this particularly good, but out of date summary from Slate. And

Does MGM VS Grokster decision mean 10 years of "Chilled Innovation"?

2005-07-06T14:19:00.000-04:00

"10 years of chilled innovation" is what Lawrence Lessig, the chair of the Creative Commons, a nonprofit project that offers a reasonable, flexible copyright versus the increasingly restrictive default rules for creative work. (See more at Creative Commons) Lessig is also a professor of law at Stanford Law School and writer of numerous books.

The interview from Business Week is worth a read. I do expect that this decision will push a lot of technology innovation underground, I'm a little more hopeful that market forces will push the big players to accept the demand for the innovations but they may very well be able to quash it as Lessig predicts. This certainly doesn't benefit our society but rather protects an industry that has shown itself slow to adapt to and respond to consumer desires.

We had the same fear of video and now it's a staple of the entertainment industry. I wonder if CD burning and DVD technology would have beeen as quick to develop under this new law?

Anyhow, there is more on the Grokster case at the Electronic Frontier Foundation I especially recommend the key quotes page

US may not cede control of Internet to ICANN

2005-07-05T12:03:00.000-04:00

According to Desktop Pipeline the US has said it is perhaps postponing its scheduled 2006 transfer of the control of the 13 computers called the root servers which give browser's like interenet explorer and firefox, and email programs instructions in how to direct internet traffic.The computers are located around the world and hold the lists of the 260 plus Internet suffixes like .com or .net and the country designators like .ca and .us, but the US has oversite of all 13 computers.

This move is upsettting many countries who don't like the idea that the US rather than an international body has final say over domain name changes for all other countries. There is some fear that there will be a movement to set up separate Domain Name Servers which would fracture the Internet, quite possibly making some content unavailable depending on the region of the world you are in.

From a Humanistic perspective this move by the Bush administration is unwise as it does not seek to improve society and develop a global community. It further does little to ensure a just distribution of the fruits of human effort but may rather cut off parts of the world from existing content and is being viewed by many around the world as yet another grab for power by this administration.

Law Signing in Church?

2005-06-03T12:36:00.000-04:00

In Texas, Governor Rick Perry is planning on signing an anti-abortion access bill and an anti-gay marriage resolution on Sunday in a conservative church school. Humanists and other supporters of church-state separation are outraged at the inappropriateness of such an event. This is yet another attack on the wall that is meant to protect Humanists and other religious minorities from discrimination in government.

The Good News

2005-06-01T15:01:00.000-04:00

Frothy fundamentalist Chuck Baldwin has Good News for those interested in promoting a worldview that's not tied to ancient myths. Chuck tells us that a new Barna Research poll reveals that "only 3% of Christian parents include the salvation of their children in the list of critical parental emphasis," compared to 39% who "believe it is 'critical' that their children get a good education."

Even better, 90% of surveyed Christians reject the fundamentalist view that:
*Believing that absolute moral truths exist;
*Such truths are defined by the Bible;
*Jesus Christ lived a sinless life;
*God is the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator and still rules today;
*Salvation is a gift of God and cannot be earned;
*Christians have a responsibility to share their faith in Christ;
*Satan is real; and
*The Bible is accurate in all its teachings.

Church-State Violation or Free-Speech?

2005-05-24T14:02:00.000-04:00

Here's a somewhat tricky case where one half of the first amendment is pitteed against the other. A lawsuit says the school violated free-speech rights by not allowing a parent, invited to read from her child's "favorite book," to read a passage from the bible. But the school says to allow a guest to read from the bible to a public school class would be an improper endorsement of religion. What do you think?

On "Compromise"

2005-05-24T10:11:00.000-04:00

According to dictionary.com, a compromise is, "A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions." In the "compromise" over the filibuster, though, only one side made real concessions. The Democrats buckled under pressure, and instead of standing with the majority of the people in this country, have allowed the right-wing Republicans to approve extremist judges. Under the "compromise," a filibuster on judicial nominations is only allowed in extreme circumstance--but aren't these circumstances extreme? These are judges that would not blink before they vote against the Constitution and against the people in this country. The filibuster is, really, a method of forcing compromise to keep extremist tendencies out of the cooling plate that is supposed to be the Senate. The Democrats have only compromised on one thing in this country: the rights of the people.

APA Supports Gay Marriage

2005-05-24T09:49:00.000-04:00

To all those folks still clinging to the idea that gay and lesbian relationships are somehow "unnatural" or "unhealthy" the American Psychiatric Association has clarified that full marriage equality is the only sound and healthy policy choice. It's high time for those who've so far refused to give-up their irrational, emotional, and religiously biased position to shed this boorish and destructive way of thnking.

The "War" at Home

2005-04-27T09:07:00.000-04:00

The L.A. Times reported yesterday that, "California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown told an audience Sunday that people of faith were embroiled in a 'war' against secular humanists who threatened to divorce America from its religious roots, according to a newspaper account of the speech." To make matters worse, the Senate just recently approved her nomination as a federal appellate court judge.

In the same speech that she claimed religion was where humans get freedom, she also decried atheism because it replaced human destiny with autonomy. Autonomy, thanks to Immanuel Kant, is a central theme in the ability of humans to act ethically. How can you do good if there is no choice in the matter?

But according to Justice Brown, the autonomy of atheists is "willful." I think this points to a very interesting feeling among religious folks, that freedom without god is a scary concept because ethical boundaries disappear that keep freedom "in check." But this ignores the wealth of ethical theory--that Humanists pick up on--based on the rational and emotional reasons to do good. We are not just free humans, we are also rational, emotional, social humans.

Another interesting theological argument to note here is the problem of free will for certain religious people: if God is all powerful, what freedom does the individual have to make ethical choices? We should be suspect when we hear that freedom comes from a God that controls the universe.

Guantanamo

2005-04-20T11:14:00.000-04:00

The good news is that the United States has released 18 more people from Guantanamo Bay, but the bad news is that the 520 people that remain there have not yet been granted their basic human rights. Additionally, the Associated Press is now arguing against the Administration's secretive policies in the courts to get more information to the public about the prisoners.

Rove Redefines "Hypocrite"

2005-04-19T08:57:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, President Bush's first mover Karl Rove had the audacity to Decry the Media's Approach to Government saying, ''We are substituting the shrill and rapid call of the track announcer for calm judgment, fact and substance." I guess Mr. Rove now intends to pass himself off as the modern day Tom Payne.

New Poll Surveys Generation Y

2005-04-13T09:02:00.000-04:00

In an interesting new Reboot poll of generation Y (18-25 year olds) includes a snapshot of "God-less" youth. One interesting finding is that, while gen Y is more progressive than gen X overall, that difference is emphasized among the God-less. "An overwhelming 77 percent [of God-less youth say that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry (compared to 53 percent overall) and 88 percent say that women should have access to legal abortion (compared to 61 percent
overall)."

One piece of methodology to keep in mind when viewing these results. They (incredibly) didn't ask respondents whether they believed in God! They sorted the respondents into Godly, God-less, and Undecided through a religiosity scale with half a dozen questions. The questions covered attendance at prayer groups, Sunday schools, church services, and religious music groups as well as prayer activity and self-identification as religious.

Schiavo and Evolution

2005-04-12T10:33:00.000-04:00

Here are two great quotes from two op-eds in the Washington Post today that I just wanted to share. Cheers to them both!

In discussing how the Schiavo case backfired on the Republicans, Eugene Robinson writes, "When politicians who play to the religious right seek to impose a Scripture-based code of conduct on legislative and political decisions, painting their opponents as 'secular' and all but calling them heathens, they sooner or later expose themselves as hypocrites."

And Richard Cohen challenges the religious right's anti-science attack on evolution: "The assault on evolution -- some Imax theaters, mostly in the South, will not show a film that makes brief references to evolution -- is an assault not just on science but on thinking and truth and skepticism. Proponents of creationism demand that you stop thinking and instead accept religious dogma."

Dobson Compares Supreme Court with the KKK

2005-04-11T16:52:00.000-04:00

As mentioned in yesterday's Talking Points Blog James Dobson compared the nation's highest arbiters of justice with the most reviled hate group in modern times. Hear Dobson's words for yourself--so you don't have to hear all his absurd commentary skip to timestamp 22:28.

Pope John Paul II

2005-04-04T13:01:00.000-04:00

Here's an article from the New York Times about how the next pope could have a fair amount of influence in U.S. politics.

Christopher Hitchens provides an alternative voice to counter the world's fawning over Pope John Paul II

Religious Groups Come Together Against Gays

2005-03-31T13:42:00.000-05:00

In an unfortunate display of the principle that an enemy of your enemy is your friend, leaders from the big 3 monotheistic traditions united today against the tolerance and diversity festival World Pride 2005. The theme for World Pride 2005? Love Without Borders.

It is times like these that I am the most proud to be part of the Humanist movement. To know that we provide a positive alternative to religious ideas that perpetuate hatred.

Yes, Yes We Are.

2005-03-29T13:20:00.000-05:00

This article is about teaching creationism in Dover, PA schools.

This quote, from a creationist supporter, says it all, "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."

The Death Sentence Based on the Bible.

2005-03-29T11:19:00.000-05:00

This case in Colorado, where the Supreme Court has thrown out the death sentence of a rapist because the jurors consulted a Bible during deliberations, is a difficult one for me. On the one hand, the rapist is receiving a sentence proportional to his crime, but on the other hand, the Bible isn't a legitimate basis for any kind of serious thought, especially when it comes to something as important as this.

Insights into the Other Side

2005-03-14T09:48:00.000-05:00

The Post published an interesting story today on the groups that are pushing creationism. They report that nineteen states are considering policies questioning evolution. These anti-evolution groups seem very mobilized; it will be a challenge for Humanists to keep science in our schools.

U.S. Pushes Conservative Agenda Internationally and at Home

2005-03-10T09:27:00.000-05:00

Many Humanists are concerned today with the increasingly negative image the U.S. projects on the international scene. This concern has good reasons. Although we won a great victory last week when the Supreme Court finally declared the death penalty for minors to be cruel and unusual punishment, yesterday the U.S. backed out of an international agreement that allows countries that do not agree with the death penalty to fight against the death penalty for its own citizens when they are put on death row in the United States. This is yet another step the U.S. has taken in order to withdraw from international agreements that work toward global justice.

Additionally, the U.S. has succeeded in convincing the UN to back a religious ban on cloning. This outrageous quote appeared in the Washington Post this morning: "'This declaration shows once and for all this is not all about the religious right,' said William B. Hurlbut, a Stanford University ethicist who serves on President Bush's Council on Bioethics. 'A decent society doesn't build the foundations of its biomedical science on the creation and destruction of human embryos.'" I would like to submit the correction that "a decent society" should utilize the advancement of science for the betterment of health of the people. The scientific advancement that has blossomed in the U.S. now seems to be in the crosshairs of the government.

On the domestic front, the administration is seeking to destroy the beautiful Alakskan wildlife refuge in its futile effort to hord oil from any place on the planet, no matter the longterm consequences. Additionally, a court of appeals decided yesterday that it was okay for government funding to go to Catholic schools through the AmeriCorps program even though this decision flies in the face of separation of religion and government. Youth interested in helping out their community will have to give up their religious identity to participate in a government funded program.

All news is not bad, though: San Diego will finally remove the cross from Mount Soledad, in a big victory in a long Humanist fight with City Hall.

Religious Bloggers

2005-03-07T11:56:00.000-05:00

Here's an article in the New York Times that I had missed, about religious bloggers and the impact that they are having in their communities. Though I'm sure a lot more could be written about their roles, and the potential power they have, the article is a good start.

Politics and religion in the Sunday papers

2005-03-07T09:37:00.000-05:00

Both the New York Times and Washington Post had articles over the weekend about the intersection between faith and politics. The New York Times discussed the role of black churches in politics and the Washington Post focused on the role of Christian evangelicals on the Hill.

Ten Commandments Oral Arguments

2005-03-03T09:15:00.000-05:00

The American Humanist Association received a good deal of news coverage yesterday--television, radio and print--regarding the debate abut governmental displays of the Ten Commandments, on account of the AHA's active role leading an amicus brief, coordinating a rally, and regularly speaking-out on the issue. One of the most interesting exchanges I heard, while attending the oral arguments went essentially as follows:

Justice Scalia: The Ten Commandments is a symbol the government derives its authority from God.
Erwin Cherminsky: That is a profoundly religious message.
Scalia: It is believed by a vast majority, and there is nothing wrong with government reflecting that. We are a tolerant nation. The minority should be tolerant of the majority belief and just turn there eyes away.
Cherminsky: I disagree. The government should make sure some are not made to feel like outsiders even if that is the majority belief.

U.S. changes course on U.N. statement about women

2005-03-03T09:08:00.000-05:00

As Robin noted last week, the U.S. government was holding up a non-binding resolution, by trying to get in an amendment that would have assured that abortion wouldn't be seen as endorsing the right to choose an abortion. However, now the U.S. has changed positions and is now dropping its demands.

Bush Contradiction Quote of the Week

2005-03-02T16:24:00.000-05:00

"Anybody who accepts money from the federal government, any faith provider, cannot discriminate based on religion. It's an important concept for our fellow citizens to understand, that no one in need will ever be forced to choose a faith-based provider. That's an important concept for people to understand. What that means is if you're the Methodist church and you sponsor an alcohol treatment center, they can't say only Methodists, only Methodists who drink too much can come to our program. (Laughter.) All drunks are welcome, is what the sign ought to say. (Applause.) Welcome to be saved, so they become sober". -remarks by the President at the White House Faith-Based And Community Initiatives Leadership Conference March, 1 2005.

The meeting of the National Religious Broadcasters

2005-03-02T12:41:00.000-05:00

Though not as secret as the Council for National Policy, the National Religious Broadcaster's conference brought out some heavy hitters on the religious right. Media Transparency posts an eyewitness account of what went on at the NRB's most recent conference.

U.S. Opposes International Women's Rights

2005-02-28T10:14:00.000-05:00

A UN declaration for the rights of women is being held up by US opposition because the US believes the document grants abortion as a human right. Instead of progressing toward gender equality globally, the United States is holding up the works by insisting on an amendment that spells out that the agreement does not include abortion as a human right.

Kansas and abortion

2005-02-25T11:12:00.000-05:00

The Kansas Attorney General is in the middle of a pathetic attempt to intimidate doctors who perform late term abortions in his state, through the guise of protecting minors.

On principle, I could see why law enforcement would want to try to stop statutory rape. However, the AG's real reasons seem so transparent that it's hard to take him seriously.

I wonder if he ever thought about promoting contraceptive use as a way to prevent late term abortions from occurring.

What more do we need?

2005-02-23T10:36:00.000-05:00

Nicholas D. Kristof is doing all that he can to let the West know about the genocide in Darfur. Is anyone out there listening?

Shhhhhh!

2005-02-16T09:34:00.000-05:00

The Federal Page of the Washington Post, which often contains stories that don't make it outside the beltway, uncovered two shockers today.

First, federal officials requested that the speech title at a federally funded conference be changed from "Suicide Prevention Among Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender Individuals" to a title that does not include the shocking "GLBT" words. They recommended using "sexual orientation," even though transgendered individuals would be excluded by such a switch. There was also a request from the higher ups that a session on faith-based suicide prevention be added to the line up.

In another act of backwards logic, the Post reports, "The Bush administration's global AIDS program last fall awarded a grant to promote abstinence in African youth to a politically connected Washington advocacy group, even though the expert committee reviewing requests for government money judged the request 'not suitable for funding.'"

Should we invade Iran?

2005-02-14T12:46:00.000-05:00

As the United States moves a closer to military action in Iran, one can't help but wonder at our motives, and what those motives might mean for the end result. The European Union has been engaged in diplomatic negotiations with Iran for over a year, but the Bush administration refuses to participate. Bush is laying the groundwork for war. By reports, Iran continues to develop nuclear capabilities, a situation virtually unchanged in years, and not likely to be a true capability until 2008. Is this justification for war?

Complicating the situation is the Iranian perspective. Can we really blame the Iranians for making this move? Toronto Star's Richard Gwyn got it right when he said "Iranians have observed the differences in the way the U.S. treats non-nuclear "rogue states" such as Iraq (by invading them) and nuclear ones, like North Korea (by lots of talk)." Unfortunately, Bush policies have created a situation where nuclear capability is a ticket to better treatment. So what do we do now?

Oh Canada?

2005-02-08T10:01:00.000-05:00

I respect the fact that these Americans are willing to put their money where their mouths are and move to Canada following the reelection of President Bush. But I also can't help to wonder what is says about the fact that they'd rather go find a liberal oasis in another country, instead of continuing the fight to create one in this country? This seems more akin to an ostrich sticking its head in the sand, unwilling to do anything to make the situation better, but hoping nonetheless, that the situation improves.

Free Speech, Diversity, and the "Gay Agenda"

2005-02-04T10:11:00.000-05:00

Rarely does PBS disappoint me; I think its existence is a vital part of free speech and good journalism in the United States. But this week it backed down in the face of controversy from showing an episode of"Postcards From Buster" that included a same-sex marriage (note that the setting of the show was Vermont, where same sex marriages are legal). Although PBS said it was not because of the Education Department's objection (an outrage in its own rite--see Anne's post from Jan. 26), it seems unlikely that it was because of any reason aside from fear of attack from the Religious Right and its friends in the Administration. A great op-ed appeared today in the Post in response to the controversy. Here is a quote from the article, written by Debra Chasnoff, an Academy Award winning filmmaker and the director of Women's Educational Media:

"Even if we keep Buster the bunny from visiting children whose parents are gay, we can't put the rabbit back in the hat. Gay people and gay issues are part of everyone's world now, including that of our children. Our only choice is whether we step up and give kids the skills and opportunities to treat everyone respectfully, or whether we try to perpetuate a false silence around the real lives of millions of Americans, a silence that is damaging to all young people."

A decade ago, it was Bert and Ernie, then it was the Teletubbies, then Harry Potter, more recently it is Spongebob Squarepants and Arthur's sidekick Buster. Is there any good children's character that is safe from the Religious Right?

Bush's Faith-Biased Ideas Don't Work

2005-02-01T10:35:00.000-05:00

In yet another example of Bush's faith-biased ideas proven ineffective, the latest study on abstinence only education indicates that it actually increases youth sexual activity. Coupled with existing data that makes it undeniably clear that these programs result in more unprotected sex and increased teen pregnancy it's time the funding of these programs is withdrawn. This religious and political folly has ruined enough lives.

Updates

2005-02-01T09:28:00.000-05:00

In an important victory for civil liberties, a federal court ruled yesterday that Guantanamo Bay detainees have a right to a fair trial in U.S. Courts.

The scandal over the remarks of the president of Harvard has spurred a discussion. In what I found to be a rather offensive column regarding the "hysterical" nature of the woman who broke the story, George F. Will falsely accused liberals of believing that individuals are blank slates. I think that one of the assets of being liberal is understanding a complex picture of humanity: there is no strong, clear dichotomy between nature and nurture where you can attach characteristics to one or the other. A somewhat more balanced story appeared today in a local look at a math and science school in Virginia.

Darfur Update

2005-01-28T09:48:00.000-05:00

Darfur Update

January 27, 2005 – U.S. Lawmakers Call for Pressure on Sudan

Moved and angered by their visits to camps for Sudanese refugees, House members called on world leaders Thursday to pressure Sudan to stop the violence in the Darfur region that has killed more than 70,000 people.

Actor Don Cheadle, nominated for an Oscar for his role in "Hotel Rwanda,'' joined lawmakers at a Capitol Hill news conference, drawing parallels to the violence that killed more than 500,000 people in Rwanda in 1994.

January 27, 2005 - China, Russia Reject US Bid to Impose UN Sanctions on Sudan

The US yesterday gave permanent members of the Security Council elements of a resolution that would establish a peacekeeping force in Sudan of up to 10,000 troops and place an arms embargo, travel ban and asset freeze on government officials. Deputy Ambassador Stuart Holliday said a draft resolution might be circulated this week. China and Russia rejected the new U.S. bid, saying any action should follow deployment of a UN peacekeeping force and formation of a coalition government in Khartoum.

January 27, 2005 - Sudan Breaks Ceasefire by Bombing Darfur Villages

The Sudanese air force has bombed villages in Darfur despite agreeing to stop using planes in the war-torn region, aid agencies say. The reported bombing comes on the border between North and South Darfur, where the government has accused rebels of mounting recent attacks. The UN has confirmed that 9,000 people had fled their homes after the nearby village of Hamada was destroyed. Up to 105 civilians are feared dead.

January 26, 2005 - U.S. Lobbying for New Court for War Crimes in Darfur

The United States is urging key UN Security Council members to set up a new court for perpetrators of atrocities and killings in Sudan's Darfur region, to avoid any referral by Europeans to the International Criminal Court, ICC, a tribunal the Bush administration vehemently opposes. One suggestion by the United States is to empower the ad hoc tribunal in Tanzania hearing genocide cases on Rwanda to include the Darfur cases also, a Bush administration official and diplomats said. But EU members so far reject this.

January 24, 2005 - Darfur Villages Reportedly Burnt in Fresh Violence

Eight villages in Darfur were reportedly burned to the ground on Friday in a fresh outbreak of violence and an unspecified number of people were killed, sources said. The official Sudan News Agency reported that the attacks were carried out by Darfur rebels and took place near Malam, about 100 km north of Nyala, the capital of South Darfur State. Other international media reported that the two main rebel groups had denied any involvement in the incidents.

January 26, 2005 - A PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll conducted December 21-27 finds that 74% of Americans say that the UN should “step in with military force and stop the genocide in Darfur.” Steven Kull, director of PIPA comments, “It appears that the regrets about failing to act in response to the Rwanda genocide may be influencing Americans. Even with the US stretched in Iraq, a majority of Americans say they are willing to contribute troops to an operation in Darfur. Moreover, this support is bipartisan, in sharp contrast to the support for the operation in Iraq which is sharply divided along party lines.”

From the Save Darfur Coalition, which the AHA is apart of.

News of the Ridiculous...

2005-01-26T09:59:00.000-05:00

The new education secretary, Margaret Spellings derided PBS for a cartoon with lesbian characters that has not even aired.

Maggie Gallagher president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and a syndicated columnist who has often supported Bush's $300 million initiative to encourage marriage, was also awarded a $21,500 federal contract to promote the proposal.

And in South Africa, a farmer is currently on trial for feeding a former employee to lions.

Hillary Clinton on abortion

2005-01-25T13:17:00.000-05:00

In general, if I didn't think that the Democrats were still licking their wounds following the election, I wouldn't be so worried about Hillary Clinton's "common ground" regarding abortion. However, I have this feeling that caving to the right is playing more of a role than any sort of sincere attempt to change the dynamic in the abortion debate. So, that's unfortunate. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily have a problem with pro-life leftists, but I don't think there's a point in suddenly pretending to care about their concerns.

At times like this, to be a successful opposition party, the Democrats should be reaffirming what it is they do believe in and what they do stand for, as opposed to desperately doing or saying whatever they think it takes to get some more votes.

AHA Convenes Inauguration Summit

2005-01-19T10:57:00.000-05:00

The American Humanist Association convened leaders of twenty-two national nontheistic organizations to address the unprecedented challenges that naturalists face in the wake of the recent election results, to discuss how those results continue to be interpreted, and how President George W. Bush's latest agenda will affect every level of government and society. Humanists, atheists, Ethical Culturists, secular Jews and other freethinkers gathered in Washington, DC, the weekend before the presidential inauguration for a vital Inauguration Summit conference.

The main story about the summit was in the Washington times, titled, Groups gather to fight Bush's faith initiatives, but the story was picked-up on United Press International and numerous other national and international outlets. Also, as I write this, AHA executive director Tony Hileman is giving his third of four separate radio interviews that were scheduled so far.

The participating organizations were American Atheists, American Ethical Union, American Humanist Association, Anti-Discrimination Support Network, Association of Humanistic Rabbis, Atheist Alliance International, Brights' Network, Camp Quest, Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations, Freedom from Religion Foundation, Gay and Lesbian Atheists and Humanists, Humanist Institute, Humanist Society, HUUmanists, International Humanist and Ethical Union, Internet Infidels, Institute for Humanist Studies, Objectivity Accuracy and Balance in Teaching About Religion, Secular Coalition for America, Secular Student Alliance, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Infidels.

Is Harvard's President a Sexist?

2005-01-18T13:47:00.000-05:00

I'm sure that some of you heard what Lawrence H. Summers said the other day about men and women.

The question is if he's a sexist, or if he was simply trying to provoke people. I think body language and exact word usage matter a lot, and since the entire conference was off the record, I guess I'll never actually know exactly how he said it.

However, in general, I'm interested in what people think about the differences between the sexes. My limited understanding is that there are physical differences between men and women that extend to the brain, mainly related to the types of hormones that we were exposed to when in utero. Then, these different physical structures do lead to different ways that men and women think. Of course, this isn't hard and fast rule, so any sort of generalization leads to exceptions.

Of course, there's the broader nature vs. nurture issue here, as well. Are the differences accounted for through the physical differences, or is it simply that culture pushes people toward specific fields of study. And again, this is a generalization that leads to exceptions. So, I'm glad he said what he said, if nothing else, because it can open up wider debate on the topic.

An Update on Guantanamo

2005-01-12T09:35:00.000-05:00

Five detainees are being released from Guantanamo amidst new allegations of torture. The detainees--one Australian and 4 Britons--in addition to hundreds of other detainees are never granted their right to a fair trial. The Post quoted Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the British Liberal Democrats as saying "the detention of these men violated all legal principle. Their civil rights were systematically and deliberately abused and they were denied due process." If the U.S. government is in fact holding these people because they are threats to national security, I think I would feel more secure knowing that they were convicted as a threat to national security in a court of law, instead of knowing that they are being subjected to torture and will be freely released as a result of that abuse, if nothing else.

A Historic Tour of the Capitol

2005-01-10T09:25:00.000-05:00

Former Georgia Representative and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is coming out with a book today touring Godly references in Washington, DC, "cataloging references to the Bible, Moses and a heavenly father on the Capitol, monuments and memorials." In related news, a Jefferson statue in nearby Fredericksburg is the scene of a heated debate over the Jeffersonian argument for religious liberty.

In other news, there is an editorial suggesting that we accept politics in science, arguing that they are inevitably intertwined. But I think his suggestions that we throw in the towel and give up on scientifically based appointments is problematic (at best).

Darfur Update

2005-01-07T09:19:00.000-05:00

Here's an update on the Darfur crisis from the Save Darfur Coalition (which the AHA is apart of).
For those interested, the coalition is selling "Not On My Watch - Save Darfur" wristbands, they can be found at www.savedarfur.org.

Darfur News Summary

January 6, 2004 – Human Rights Watch Says Atrocities and Impunity Threaten Lasting Peace

Continuing atrocities in Darfur and impunity for war crimes in the south jeopardize prospects for peace in Sudan, Human Rights Watch warned today ahead of the January 9 signing of a peace agreement to end the 21-year conflict in the south.

Read the article: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/cb678b6732d7b8764f49c8b5179f1ab9.htm

January 5, 2004 - U.N. Says Darfur Rebel Threat Spells Disaster

The rebel Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) told the government on Tuesday to withdraw troops by the end of the week from all territory occupied in the past two months or it would pull out of the cease-fire monitoring body. Their withdrawal from the cease-fire monitoring commission would spell disaster for the faltering peace process, the United Nations said Wednesday.

Read the article: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-sudan-darfur.html?oref=login

January 4, 2004 - UN Calls for Cease-fire to Allow Polio Program

Sudanese rebels and government forces have resumed fighting in Darfur, officials said Tuesday, as the United Nations sent out a plea for a three-day ceasefire to ensure thousands of children can be immunized to prevent a polio epidemic. The UN cites the Darfur conflict as one factor behind Sudan's polio outbreak, its first since the virus was eradicated in the country in April 2001. There have been 105 reported cases in Sudan since fighting begun, marking the third highest rate in the world.

Read the article: http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=7363

December 29, 2004 - U.N. Agency Suspends Sudan Food Convoys

The U.N. World Food Program suspended food convoys to the Darfur region in western Sudan after rebel forces attacked the market town of Ghubaysh and the government retaliated, U.N. humanitarian officials said. The relief agency halted three convoys of 70 trucks carrying more than 1,300 tons of food destined for El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, and Nyala, the capital of South Darfur state.

Read the article: http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2004/12/29/un_agency_suspends_sudan_food_convoys/
December 24, 2004 – President Bush Signs Sanctions Bill

President George W. Bush has signed into law legislation that enables him to impose sanctions on Sudan, in protest at the violence in Darfur. Measures include a travel ban on Sudanese leaders and the freezing of officials' and companies' assets. The new law calls on the president to encourage other United Nations members to implement similar sanctions.

Read the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4123493.stm

Prevention

2005-01-05T09:48:00.000-05:00

Two stories from the Post this week dealt with contraception issues. One announced that the use of contraception by women has declined, possibly due to the health insurance crisis as well as misinformation provided by abstinence-based sexual education. The decline in contraception use has alarmed public health officials. Another story described a study that found access to emergency contraception (EC) does not increase risky sexual behavior as opponents to EC say. The FDA rejected making emergency contraception available over the counter despite the fact that it could prevent unwanted pregnancies (thereby preventing abortions). Additionally, the Department of Justice omitted any mention of EC from its medical guidelines for treating sexual assault victims.

It is interesting to me that while the heated abortion debate continues, there are preventively policy like comprehensive sexual education and access to contraception that enjoy widespread public support. I think the best way to "win" the abortion debate is to place it in this larger context of women's health and family planning issues. Prevention sounds a lot better than abortion.

Abortion out of the spotlight?

2004-12-28T09:51:00.000-05:00

In going along with what I've said before about the right to choose, I don't think there's a problem if the Democrats want to tweak their message in terms of abortion. The left should be open to (and be willing to take on) any and all arguments that will secure the long term rights of women to have control over their bodies. However, after reading this article about how the Democrats are 'rethinking' the abortion issue, it makes me wonder if they are just talking about changing their rhetoric, or if they are actually going to slowly start changing positions.

And here are some letters to the editor in response to the article.

News Nearing the New Year

2004-12-21T09:47:00.000-05:00

Republicans just appointed two anti-choice Senators to the Senate Judiciary Panel which will review Bush's likely nominations for the U.S. Supreme Court. This is yet another unfortunate step to what could have a 40 year effect on a wide range of issues: women's rights, the separation of religion and government, worker's rights, and a host of others.

In other news, new allegations of abuse have been uncovered by the FBI at Guantanamo just as they announce another prisoner (possibly wrongly identified as an enemy combatant) may be freed.

Of course, the real story that the religious right would like us all to pay attention to is the story of Christ's birth. As John Stewart joked on the Daily Show, it's not exactly late breaking news. But that doesn't stop the religious right from making news out of it. Allegations fly that the secular left is the grinch of Christmas by discriminating against Christians by banning all holiday cheer from the public sphere--this all despite the fact that some on the secular left celebrate Christmas, and most Americans support separation of church and state. These stories are everywhere from FOX's television news to the Washington Post print news. If you need a little breather from all that holiday insanity, though, take heart in NYT's column rebutting all this ridiculousness.

Does the Left Need "A Fighting Faith?"

2004-12-20T11:17:00.000-05:00

This article by The New Republic editor Peter Beinart is a few weeks old, but worth reading for those interested in the future direction of progressive politics.

The very short summary of his article is that for the Left to regain its focus (and win elections again) it basically needs to take more seriously the war against Islamist totalitarianism. Money quote:

"Today, three years after September 11 brought the United States face-to-face with a new totalitarian threat, liberalism has still not "been fundamentally reshaped" by the experience. On the right, a "historical re-education" has indeed occurred--replacing the isolationism of the Gingrich Congress with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's near-theological faith in the transformative capacity of U.S. military might. But American liberalism, as defined by its activist organizations, remains largely what it was in the 1990s--a collection of domestic interests and concerns. On health care, gay rights, and the environment, there is a positive vision, articulated with passion. But there is little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda--even though totalitarian Islam has killed thousands of Americans and aims to kill millions; and even though, if it gained power, its efforts to force every aspect of life into conformity with a barbaric interpretation of Islam would reign terror upon women, religious minorities, and anyone in the Muslim world with a thirst for modernity or freedom.

When liberals talk about America's new era, the discussion is largely negative--against the Iraq war, against restrictions on civil liberties, against America's worsening reputation in the world. In sharp contrast to the first years of the cold war, post-September 11 liberalism has produced leaders and institutions--most notably Michael Moore and MoveOn--that do not put the struggle against America's new totalitarian foe at the center of their hopes for a better world. As a result, the Democratic Party boasts a fairly hawkish foreign policy establishment and a cadre of politicians and strategists eager to look tough. But, below this small elite sits a Wallacite grassroots that views America's new struggle as a distraction, if not a mirage. Two elections, and two defeats, into the September 11 era, American liberalism still has not had its meeting at the Willard Hotel. And the hour is getting late."

It's a good article. It reminds me of what Nick Cohen said about the left a year ago in a review of one of Noam Chomsky's books.

"The Left, which has been formally committed to the Enlightenment ideal of universal freedom for two centuries, couldn't bring itself to be as honest. Instead millions abandoned their comrades in Iraq and engaged in mass evasion. If you think that it was asking too much to expect it to listen to people in Iraq when they said there was no other way of ending 35 years of oppression, consider the sequel. Years after the war, the Kurdish survivors of genocide and groups from communists through to conventional democrats had the right to expect fraternal support against the insurgency by the remnants of the Baath Party. They are being met with indifference or active hostility because they have committed the unforgivable sin of cooperating with the Americans. For the first time in its history the Left has nothing to say to the victims of fascism."

Since I'm the only liberal hawk in the office, (and sometimes feel that I'm the only one in this movement) I'm very much interested in what my fellow bloggers and any other readers have to say about Beinart's piece. Though the post-war occupation isn't going as I had hoped, I still fail to see how the liberation of 25 million of my fellow human beings, from the grip of a crazed and tyrannical dictator, is somehow antithetical to Humanist values.

Christians in the Statehouse, and the Non-religious on the Front Lines

2004-12-13T13:25:00.000-05:00

Here's a worrysome article about how Christian conservatives are working on a state level to ensure that their regressive agenda of bashing gays, banning abortion and denying evolution continues.

What I'm really mystified about is the fact that conservatives in this country think that they had a "mandate" following the reelection of the president. I mean, sure, considering Bush actually won the popular vote this time, I guess you could interpret that as some sort of mandate. But Bush won by three million votes, out of the 120 million people or so who voted. How does that qualify as a mandate? On a similar strain, if Kerry had won by those three million votes, it would hardly have been a strong sign from the voting populace that they wanted radical changes in U.S. foreign or domestic policy.

The Times also had this weekend op-ed piece titled "Keeping the Faith in My Doubt." Though I don't have any solid statistics to back it up, I've developed this feeling over time that newspapers and popular magazines are only interested in running self-deprecating pieces about the non-religious, written by the non-religious.

He's also off on a few points. Even by defining yourself as a freethinker, it's showing that you are adhering to some set or system of beliefs, or at least a way of thinking. How this prevents you from joining an organization is beyond me.

And like many others new to this movement, he is horrified -- just horrified! -- by the fact that there are internal squabbles. I'm sure at some point of my involvement with them movement, I shared his idealism and innocence. However, I think it's something you get over pretty quickly. The problem really isn't with competition between multiple organizations, or even that there are multiple organizations. The problem is when this competition becomes personal and turns to conflict between the organizations.

Regarding his main objection, he states "Moreover, rejection of religion and adherence to a supposedly scientific worldview do not necessarily represent our route to salvation." As his evidence, he points out how "pseudoscientific ideologies, eugenics and Marxism." powered the Nazi's and Soviets. But since our movement doesn't support a "supposedly scientific worldview" and "pseudoscientific ideologies," his statements seems more like a straw man for him to easily attack, as opposed to a real critique of the modern movement.

It also amazes me that he's envious of religious friends, because he sees how their faith comforts them. Isn't he the slightest bit worried that all of his friends either a) blindly accept or b) purposely ignore evidence to the contrary, a set of propositions and beliefs that cannot be verified in any sort of objective or empirical method? Is there any concern that his friends may not separate the idea of "religion" and "morality"? What about the fact that there are plenty of people out there who would impose a narrow set of religious beliefs, set down thousands of years ago, amongst the wider population? It seems both quaint and condescending for the non-religious to go on about how wonderful blind faith is. It shows, to some degree, that we hold the residual belief from our wider culture, which claim that religious faith and belief are positives. It also seems like a mild form of paternalism, as if we're agreeing with a child's belief in the Easter Bunny.

And I'm not too clear after reading his last paragraph, if he suggests that the non-religious drop all of our "isms" or embrace them, since he suggests both courses of action. I think this paragraph is generally indicative of the laziness of thought that is pervasive throughout the article.

The Islamic Civil War

2004-12-10T10:14:00.000-05:00

Here's a good New York Times article about it.

No Compromise

2004-12-10T09:36:00.000-05:00

Gay activist leaders yesterday reasserted their commitment to equal rights. After the election, some political pundits falsely jumped to the conclusion that the election results were the outcome of same sex marriage ballot initiatives increasing the turnout of religious conservatives, but as is often the case with such momentous historical occasions, the story is more complicated than that. It's good to see the GLBT movement reassert its commitment, while also continuing the never ending process of learning political lessons from every step in the march toward rights.

Meanwhile, our forward-thinking neighbors to the north took a step toward granting legal status to gay marriage.

Evolution in the Schools

2004-12-07T09:38:00.000-05:00

State and local governments across the country are facing new challenges to the teaching of evolution in public schools. Despite its strong scientific evidence, challengers from the Religious Right are relentless at attempting to force non-scientific theory into science classrooms.

Do Tell (Finally)

2004-12-06T09:26:00.000-05:00

The Pentagon "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is being challenged by 12 gays who were discriminated against in the military. I think this could be a real step forward for GLBT rights.

Free Church Renovations from the Government

2004-12-03T09:08:00.000-05:00

Our friends over at Americans United filed a suit yesterday against governmental financial support that is directly going to churches through Bush's faith based initiative. The government claims that it grants the money to 'historically significant' churches, but, as Barry Lynn points out, a lot of churches could be deemed 'historically significant.'

Abstain through Fear and Misinformation

2004-12-02T09:17:00.000-05:00

After World AIDS day drew our attention yesterday to the crisis of HIV globally, attention returns home today with American sexual health, specifically concerning abstinence based sexual education. Prevention is vital to containing the virus (as well as other STDs and unplanned pregnancies) here at home and abroad. Many experts agree the key to prevention is full, comprehensive education. But the current Administration is following a dangerous path lined with the values of fundamentalists pushing abstinence based education. In a new report evidence shows that abstinence based education is misinforming youth about sexual health.

The Bush Administration's sexual education policy is clearly coming from a religiously informed, as opposed to a scientifically informed, policy--creating the perfect example of policy gone awry from the failure of proper separation between religion and government. The more concrete effects of such an impoverished education will probably not be felt fully for a while, but the repercussions cannot be understated: generations to come will suffer under a more widespread threat of AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases, and unplanned pregnancies. And the policies of today threaten to turn the wheels of progress back to a time where an irrational fear and skewed sense of sexuality persists.

Evolution, and who is John Galt?

2004-11-30T10:22:00.000-05:00

Here's a funny look at those stickers that some school board's want placed in science text books. It takes a bit to load, but it's well worth it.

And no, it's not actually John Galt. But according to David Brooks, if we want to see what a real evangelical is like, Meet the Press should have invited John Stott onto the show, instead of Falwell and Sharpton.

Humanists are key to 2006

2004-11-29T15:21:00.000-05:00

As progressives continue to try to respond to the election results it remains clear that, whether or not this election was about morals, Republican's won only after regularly bolstering their religious conservative base. If Democrats think they can shed their progressive secular base and win in 2004 they are sorely mistaken. As representatives of the progressive seculars, Humanists must not give-in to supposedly pragmatic claims that now is the time to take a back seat.

My claiming a false mandate and pushing faith-based initiatives, public displays of Christianity, and rolling back women's rights conservative Republicans are playing into our hands by pushing their agenda too far. To back down now, to allow the Democrats to become "Republican Lite" would be to lose our opportunity to seed the ground for reclaiming America in 2006 and 2008.

What About His Mother?

2004-11-29T14:16:00.000-05:00

I guess I missed a good segment on "Meet The Press" with four ministers squaring off on the topic of religion and the U.S. The New York Times has the highlights of the show, with the money quote being coming from the Rev. Jerry Falwell, saying "I wouldn't vote for my mother if she were pro-choice." It's a bit surprising to me that he'd say something like this, considering his love for the Ten Commandments, and his desire to see them plastered here, there and everywhere. After all, doesn't the Fifth Commandment (the Protestant version, at least), say "Honor your father and mother"?