In discussions about atheism with friends, relatives, and folks in online discussion groups, I've noticed that the separation of church and state issue gets lots of attention.  I think it is the central issue.  It's one thing I always mention.  But I've noticed it doesn't seem to function for some of my associates in these dialogues the same way it does for me.  I think of it as a bottom-line shared value on the left, and I sense in these groups that we all place great importance on it.  But I ultimately hear it employed to say, "The problem with religion is that people want to base laws on it." But isn't that in fact a problem with people that want to base laws on it?

As long as we keep our dukes up and make sure that piece is protected, isn't whatever someone else believes sort of none of our business?  As long as they are not setting policy or writing curriculum, why is there such intense resolve on the part of some atheists to keep pressing and pressing the point that everyone else has stupid beliefs?  That seems like the height of bigotry, and I haven't heard anyone yet say convincingly why it isn't.  

On a personal level, I am getting so sick of people I respect and feel great affection for, whom I assume have similar feelings for me, stating over and over that my belief system - which they know nothing about except that it isn't atheism - is wrong.  That it's valid to use their metrics to evaluate my private intellectual system for organizing ideas about the mysteries of life.  I can't believe it sometimes.  I don't get why that isn't an egregiously prejudiced, snobbish response.

I personally have no interest in searching historical records for signs of miracles or accounts of the lives of prophets.  My eyes glaze over hearing about such things.  In terms of my own beliefs, there is no "proof," for or against them.  They are just how I picture what we don't yet know about life.  You can't really hold them up to a logical analysis any more than you could use a mathematical equation to measure exactly how much I love my husband.  Any more than you can study pride or envy or awe in a laboratory.  But to say "it's not supposed to be logical" to the evangelical atheist is like throwing yourself to the wolves.  "There you go!  If it's 'not logical," then it's faulty thinking by definition!"  

Meanwhile, it's my mind, it's my belief system, and it's a big part of who I am. I don't follow dogma, or worship a god, but I think about intangible things in the universe in a way that is open, curious, optimistic and...throwing myself to the wolves again...spiritual.  I love the word spiritual.  It signals ignorance to my friends.  But there is nothing ignorant about wondering why the sight of geese passing over autumn trees makes me feel melancholy in a good way. And why thunderstorms both scare us and attract us. Yes, dears, they scare us to trigger the adaptive response of taking shelter.  But why do they captivate us too?  It's a rhetorical question; please don't send me the evolutionary reason.  I don't picture thunder as God bowling, but I think it is magical and mystical and it would bore me to hear why it also promotes the survival of the species.  So does minding your own business about what's in someone else's head.  Dears.

And as far as people who do believe in things like Jesus or Allah or rain dances or holy books - I can't believe the way they are condemned wholesale by some atheists.  It is so surprising to me sometimes.  There is a terribly culturally-insensitive aspect to this, so shocking to see played out in liberal discussions.  Some seem to feel comfortable mocking whole cultures; whole groups of people who have for generations woven ritual and talismans and rosaries and prayers and holy water and clergy into their lives and communities.  And the lip-service paid to the idea that religion "can play an important role in society" or "sometimes helps people feeeeel better" is so dismissive and superior it makes me a little ill.  

If the spiritual beliefs of others aren't being forced on you, why does it destroy your day to be aware of them in public?  I get that it is ubiquitous, but so is body odor, if you live in the city.  I get that it is symbolic to some people of their own traumatic childhood upbringings.  To some victims of sexual violence or child abuse, every male with a certain hair color and height does that too. I am not a Christian, but I have the social skills to get through a Christian funeral or wedding.  I may roll my eyes when people think there's praying in football, but I don't spend any time on it.  I'm more turned off by brightly-painted belly flab than by the sign of the cross from the kicker.

Now, I did have a she-Hulk fit, and lodge an official complaint, when I heard a Christian invocation used to open a county-wide meeting when I worked in the public school system.  Although surprised, I stood and bowed my head because I prefered that to noticeably sitting it out.  But I'd have completely respected anyone else doing the latter, especially in that setting.  I made a mental note to email someone to say that even this ecumenical prayer I was hearing should not have been included at a school system meeting.  But when they closed it with "in Jesus' name we pray," I almost flipped the table over.  Even in rural NC you'd think they should know about Jews from TV.  I didn't break anything, but they heard from me later, formally and emphatically.  

But I didn't get bogged down picking apart the contents of the prayer.  The prayer shouldn't have been there at all.  It is beside the point whether I believe Jesus is magic.  I had no interest in pronouncing everyone at that meeting who had crossed themselves to be intellectually bankrupt, superstitious or wrong.  If you try to worm it into public policy or curriculum, you're all mine.  Otherwise, go for it.

It is not true that you have to choose between believing in evolution and science, and having abstract philosophical ideas that are inconsistent with what science knows now. If you think it is, you aren't thinking deeply.  I have been told that believing anything could exist outside what can be proven is by definition superstitious - an ignorant tolerance for the concept of the supernatural.  But doesn't my thinking reflect my love for science when I ponder to myself, "I wonder if there could be a force of love in the same way there is a force of gravity?"  Saying that certain of your ideas exist outside of science and aren't subject to proofs, is not saying you don't believe the proofs we have.  That just sounds obtuse to me!

I will put out a challenge to my readers: please, be the first person who can convincingly explain to me why the following words sound better coming out of one mouth than another: 

• "Your beliefs aren't just different from mine; they're wrong."
  
• "Instead of believing what you believe, you should believe what I believe."
• "You teach your kids that???"
• "I must go out and convince others that this is the only right thing to believe."

Personally, I don't want to hear that mess from anyone.

I think the atheist movement has been brilliant, incredibly important, and exciting.  In an amazingly short time the very idea of vocal, activist atheists has gone from 0 to 60. Just a few years ago, people thought an atheist was some crank father who didn't want his child saying the pledge.  Well that turned out to be a worthy and seminal cause, and now it's a whole movement led and followed by countless intelligent, witty, creative and accomplished people.  This is the perfect time for people in the movement to figure out how to define themselves in a way that doesn't reflect everything they hate about organized religion.

Catholic institutions should not have to pay for contraception for their employees.  It's a clear violation of the First Amendment.  This is one of those most difficult of issues we face  - the delicate balance between the Constitutional protection we enjoy from having any religion imposed on public life, and the protection we count on for any religion to practice its teachings freely.  Sometimes I think this is one of the most important clauses - at least it requires the most of all of us to think through, be careful, and imagine how we would want specific laws and rules pertaining to this issue implemented by succeeding generations.

Obama and Sibelius made a drastic error in refusing to grant the Catholic church an exemption from providing free birth control to its institutions' employees.  I kept waiting to hear arguments that would convince me otherwise, but I still can't see it any other way.  I appreciate the thoughts and concerns of people on the left that I have discussed it with, and I believe they are advocating for women, and not just politicking.  But I just haven't heard a single thing that refutes the idea that this is a very dangerous First Amendment imbalance, that if implemented, would not be justified or legal.  (As I write this, Obama has made a reversal of sorts, for which I am glad.  But it's hard right now to say if the switch is to a plan that really relieves the church of having to take responsibility for providing contraception.)

As I was reading commentary about this on various websites, it wasn't Republican Congresspersons who convinced me, unsurprisingly.  They apparently aren't worried about the votes of centrist women, or centrist men who care about women's issues.  They aren't even making a stab at acknowledging that we as a society have an interest in seeing that women have as much access as possible to comprehensive health care.  I would think that even apolitical, moderate citizens, if they don't have a religious objection to birth control, are likely to see that there are a couple of opposing interests to be weighed here, so I don't know why Republicans aren't giving that thought the time of day.  No, they went straight to:  this is a secular attack from an unholy socialist President, intent on suppressing religion in the US.  Their infuriating hyperbole embarrasses them - they don't need it here, so what's the point?  They needed hyperbole to make people think the Obama "War on Christmas" is bad, because it isn't real, so hyperbole is all they have. But since this is a real issue, I don't know why they feel they have to resort to the "War on Religion" rhetoric.  Yuck.

What actually confirmed my immediate gut feeling that this would be a clear violation of the separation of church and state was the rationale for the rule provided by people on the left.  A piece of Kevin Drum's blog on Mother Jones sums up the argument.  (My comments are in brackets.): 

"(I) support the Obama administration's decision to require health care plans to cover contraception, as well as its decision to permit only a very narrow exemption for religious organizations.  (Here's why.)

• In any case like this, you have to look at two separate issues: (1) How important is the secular public purpose of the policy? And (2) how deeply held is the religious objection to it?

[Agreed.  So far so good - those are exactly the things we should look at.]

• On the first issue, I'd say that the public purpose here is pretty strong. Health care in general is very clearly a matter of broad public concern; treating women's health care on a level playing field with men's is, today, a deep and widely-accepted principle; and contraception is quite clearly critical to women's health. Making it widely and easily available is a legitimate issue of public policy.

[Agreed on the sentiment, absolutely.  Access to contraception is a critical public health concern.  Barriers to access include lack of information, lack of resources like cash and transportation, and difficulty finding service providers.  But it is legitimate, when the First Amendment stakes are this high, to consider degrees of hardship.  I am willing to factor in that we are talking about women in the workforce here.  Even though that doesn't guarantee they have much money or reliable transportation or understanding of where to go, those are things that could be addressed by the government in other ways.  The big box pharmacies sell generic birth control for $4-5, and non-profit agencies provide them for free, so its a matter of getting referrals and getting there. 
(back to Drum's quote)]

• "On the second issue, I simply don't believe that the religious objection here is nearly as strong as critics are making it out to be. As I've mentioned before, even the vast majority of Catholics (underline his) don't believe that contraception is immoral. Only the formal church hierarchy does."

(end quote)

The latter statement provides a precise example of why government has to stay out of religion.  The number of people within a religion's ranks who practice what their leaders preach has nothing to do with the law.  And he displays an ignorance of a piece of Catholic culture that is important here.  (Why wouldn't he be ignorant of it, but that's why the public should be hands off with the private.)

Individual members of a religion - even lots of them - may feel out of sync with the hierarchy's teachings, but they should still be able to expect their church to have full legal protections.  There is probably scarcely a religious tenet that isn't questioned, opposed, or just not followed by some of the members of its church.  Whose business is that, and what does it have to do with respecting the legal rights of that church? 

For Catholics, coming to grips with the most conservative teachings of their church in real life application is not a new question.  I come from a family of eight.  As much as that is a reflection of Catholic teachings being followed, the fact that I don't come from a family of twelve reflects that (thankfully!) at some point my parents obviously did not follow the Churches teachings.  (The old joke was, what do you call people that use the rhythm method?  Parents.)  Catholic teachings oppose divorce, too, but Catholics do get divorced.  These are things we have to leave up to them to work out.

Regardless of what my readers think about how individual Catholics work out their faith in their own lives, the law says their church has a right to practice its teachings.  I am not a religious person, and I am pro-choice and certainly pro-contraception.  But I have to admit to some respect for the consistency of the Catholic belief system about the sanctity of life.  They are steadfastly opposed to the taking of any life as they define it.  I personally have different views about when a fetus becomes a person, and whether a person has a right to choose to die, and other such specifics.  But what I'm saying is, they are so devoted to this concept that it is central to their beliefs, and it is consistent.  They are against the death penalty, against the killing of enemy combatants that don't present an imminent threat, and only accept war in a self-defense capacity.  What of individual Catholics practicing birth control?  That is personal, very personal.  I can guarantee you something:  while it may be difficult for a practicing Catholic, working for a Catholic employee, to have to get a hold of their own birth control, not on the company's dime, you will have a hard time finding Catholics who want these employers to be compelled to offer it.  It will be in those numbers that you will see the mistake the left is making in trying to argue, "no trust me, this is what these people want, most of them use birth control anyway."

Again, I need to take some time to look at this recent reversal on Obama's part.  I was going to change this post drastically in light of it, but I have a feeling there will be a few more rounds before it's settled, so I will post this part for now.  I think he made a huge blunder politically, and I'm not sure the reversal solves anything yet.  I hope I am overestimating what a problem it will be, but it's going to be at least an ugly fight. 

If this revision doesn't solve anything for the Catholic leadership, I hope we will keep working on it.  There is some real compromise that could happen here.  Would the church be willing to provide an allowance for discretionary health spending?  Sort of like a flexible spending account, but not out-of-pocket?  Or would the state be willing to partner with employees' current providers to defray the cost of birth control for employees of exempted institutions?  We can make it work.  

I'm off to research the revision - hopefully it provides the compromise we need.  Look for an update soon._

This morning members of the US House of Representatives poured their coffee, sharpened their pencils, and set to work on a critical concern facing our nation: making sure everyone is clear about the fact that "In God We Trust" is our nation's motto.  

Virginia Republican Randy Forbes introduced House Resolution 13 in January, and today it made its way to the House floor.  And thank goodness.  There has never been a more important time to devote government resources to a four-word platitude.

Hopefully Representative Forbes will mobilize Congress around this resolution, which asks that this auspicious body lend its power to make the saying official, again, and spur us all to a greater level of industriousness for inscribing it on fancy plaques everywhere.

H Res. 13 reads: “Reaffirming ‘In God We Trust’ as the official motto of the United States and supporting and encouraging the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.”

Forbes shouldn't have any trouble getting this passed.  It’s a model of passionate proofs and dignified decrees.  There’s the part that quotes President Ford quoting President Eisenhower saying that we wouldn't have this American government or way of life without God.  And the one that explains that the motto ought to be displayed in Congressional Chambers because it is displayed in Congressional Chambers.  And the one that points out that the motto can be found in the national anthem. 

Who knew that last one?  Well, I tracked down the complete lyrics, and there it is, in the 4th verse.  To get there you have to go past the interesting 3rd verse, sort of like how you have to wade through all the unsavory stuff in Leviticus to get to the anti-gay stuff.  Francis Scott Key was no doubt having a moment the night he wrote the Star Spangled Banner, so he can be forgiven for relishing the gory details of the fate of the British, penning, "their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution," and gloating about their terror and "the gloom of the grave" they faced.  But hey, it's poetry, written in a time of war.  I find singing the national anthem bracing and inspiring, a valuable ceremonial ritual.  But as far as digging up its forgotten verses to justify an ill-conceived resolution, Forbes should have left well enough alone.

Anyway, our folks in the House of the 112th Congress are going to get the whole motto thing squared away for us today.

Does it sound like I'm not taking this seriously?  Well, I wasn't. I wasn't thinking about it.  Were you?  One of my driving forces is raising awareness about the critical balance of religious protections embodied in the first amendment.  But unlike some of my friends on the left, I’ve not been focused on the wording of the pledge or on our currency.  My take has been like that of the Supreme Court.  When the issue came before them in 1970, they sided with those who wanted to keep "In God We Trust" as our motto, basically saying, "oh don't worry about it, it's not all that religious, it's more ceremonial and patriotic.”  

I have great respect for many devoutly religious leaders who have worked in the public sphere.  (Not usually the conservative ones, but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.)   But I also have great respect for certain notable atheists.  And I’m worried about the hostile climate for Muslim-Americans, and haven’t noticed the Jewish Anti-defamation League being ready to close up shop.

Still, parsing the official catch-phrase of the country hasn't been at the top of my list. But if Representative Forbes wants to get this party started, we can.

His website says that this double extra assurance for an already-official motto is needed because there are people trying to "reverse decades of long-standing tradition."  Decades?  That’s not tradition.  The First Amendment was ratified in 1791. References to God were woven into the fabric of public life by rewording the Pledge of Allegiance and adding wording to our paper money in the 50’s, when terror of godless Communism was rampant.  They are cultural remnants of the early years of the Cold War, certainly not inherent aspects of our democracy, which was explicitly founded on principles antithetical to such wording. Joseph McCarthy is gone.  He lost his fight.  And while the fear that he left in his wake prompted the country to write God into some ceremonial aspects of public life, the practice can’t be defended as the basis for all we hold dear.

But that’s exactly what Forbes posits in his bill.  One clause tells us that “if religion and morality are taken out of the marketplace of ideas, the very freedom on which the United States was founded cannot be secured."  Actually, no one is suggesting taking anything out of “the marketplace of ideas.”  My own philosophy is that Forbes is conflating religion and morality here.  If only religion was a predictor of morality.  I see morality as something some people base on their religion, and some people base on other guiding principles.  It’s morality that we all – regardless of belief system – would want our leaders to have.  But this theorizing - in the marketplace of ideas - is something everyone is free to do, and is not threatened by the status of a motto. 

There is nothing untoward about elected officials putting their faith on display.  The Establishment clause does not preclude that; in fact it protects it.  Religious faith is part of who many Americans are, and it’s up to their constituents to form individual opinions about how that plays out in the official’s performance. Founding Father James Madison said that religious devotion in this country was "manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state."  I myself am often stirred by images of Presidents and Senators in the past and present, at pivotal times in the life of our country, with their heads bowed or walking with their families up the steps of a church. The truly devout, whether they are followers of the Pentecostal Holiness Church or Secular Humanists, share an interest in preserving religious freedom in this country.  This is a shared concern, equally important to religious people and those who are not.  We all benefit from what was presciently set forth by the Framers of the Constitution; that we must commit to simultaneously protecting freedom of expression of religion, and freedom of imposition of it by the state.

It is incumbent on Representative Forbes to use his office to preserve separation of church and state.  He should take great comfort in the fact that with a few simple words, the Founders threaded a needle that safeguards his right to serve openly as a Christian.  To never have to live in fear of reprisal for practicing his faith while serving in Congress. Can Representative Forbes not imagine a time or circumstance in which members of a belief system other than his own might gain enough influence to encroach on his ideology?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I don’t think the motto issue is urgent.  It’s the last thing I think Congress should be spending time on right now.  But it does raise the larger issue, and if you insist, Representative Forbes, we can make sure that issue gets clarified now.  Be careful what you wish for.