11.05.09
Posted in Jesse Galef, Politics, Secular Coalition for America at 4:00 pm by Jesse Galef
This post is by Jesse Galef
–
The late senator Kennedy used to be quite good on separation of church and state issues, but he had a weakness for helping Christian Science. Call me cynical if you like, but it might have to do with the fact that the Church of Christ, Scientist is based in Boston and has political clout. Now that John Kerry is the senior senator in Massachusetts, he’s taking over where Kennedy left off. The LATimes reports:
Backed by some of the most powerful members of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses.
The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) with the support of Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist.
The measure would put Christian Science prayer treatments — which substitute for or supplement medical treatments — on the same footing as clinical medicine. While not mentioning the church by name, it would prohibit discrimination against “religious and spiritual healthcare.”
Yes, this is obviously nonsense. While I expected this of Hatch, Kerry typically gets it right. But don’t be disheartened! When I worked for the Secular Coalition, we were lobbying on this issue - as it turns out, there was some positive news on the House side last week:
The Secular Coalition for America is thrilled that the House of Representatives has decided to remove language found in all three draft bills that would require private and public plans to cover the spiritual care of individuals with religious objections to medical care.
Today the House released their version of the health care reform bill that did not include language requiring private and public health plans to cover spiritual care for any person. This “spiritual care” includes reimbursements for payments that Christian Scientists make to members of the Church who pray for them when they are ill.
So! Here’s where we stand: the offending provision will probably be in the final Senate bill – it has the cover of being a bipartisan effort and that chamber is less favorable to our issues. But it isn’t in the House versions. Before a full vote, it will be up to the party leadership to reconcile the versions – that’s where the real decision will be made.
There’s hope yet, although it would be nice if we didn’t have to keep fighting for minor victories in what is already supposed to be a secular government.
Permalink ~
Posted in Jesse Galef, Lawsuits, Secular Coalition for America at 12:00 pm by Jesse Galef
This post is by Jesse Galef, who is stepping in today.
–
I know they do things differently “across the pond” but I was still surprised to read that in a legal case in England, climate change belief was given the same legal status as religion. No joke.
Tim Nicholson is a strong environmentalist to the point that he refuses to travel by air. He believes this was a factor in his recent termination and wants to sue for wrongful discrimination. This week, a judge ruled that his environmentalism qualifies as a “genuinely held philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations” and that he could proceed with a lawsuit.
Mr Nicholson hailed the Employment Appeals Tribunal ruling as “a victory for common sense” but stressed climate change was “not a new religion”.
He said: “I believe man-made climate change is the most important issue of our time and nothing should stand in the way of diverting this catastrophe.
“This philosophical belief that is based on scientific evidence has now been given the same protection in law as faith-based religious belief.
“Belief in man-made climate change is not a new religion, it is a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values and is underlined by the overwhelming scientific evidence.”
His lawyer Shah Qureshi, head of employment law at Bindmans LLP, argued that if the ruling had gone against them, “the end result would be that the more evidence there is to support your views, the less likely it would be for you to enjoy protection against discrimination”.
Now, I don’t know enough about the British law to comment on the judge’s decision – it might be an accurate dispensation of their written laws. But this is a great example of how complex the issue of secularism can be and how tough it is to implement. We don’t want the state to define religion – that would be none of their authority – and without a definition we have other problems.
This situation reminds me off is the so-called “conscience protection clauses” that are typically associated with the religious right here in America. Senator Enzi tried to slip one in the healthcare bill – I remember because when I was with the Secular Coalition we lobbied against it. It states that if a healthcare employee feels a particular act violates their conscience, he or she can refuse to do so without fear of being fired. In context, it usually means that someone can refuse to assist in like abortions, sell contraception, or provide end of life care. Our position has generally been that if your supernatural beliefs are affecting your job performance, you might have chosen the wrong job and companies have the right to dismiss you.
I suppose that if a country is going to have a law like the “conscience protection clause” for religion, it might as well apply for nonreligious moral systems, right?
Wait, I just thought of something: I have a sincere belief, based on science and philosophy, that religion is incorrect and that it is immoral to promote faith. In my job search, perhaps I should consider applying for the clergy in England – I could get paid while conscientiously refusing to work!
Permalink ~
10.28.09
Posted in College Atheists, General, Politics, Secular Coalition for America at 6:00 am by Hemant Mehta
Yesterday, The Boston Channel featured several segments on the topic of being “Good Without God.”
The first segment focuses on Harvard Humanist Chaplain Greg Epstein.
The second, on the Boston Atheists.
The third, on Bostonian Woody Kaplan (Advisory Board chair for the Secular Coalition for America and the focus of the Kay Hagan campaign controversy during last year’s senate race).
The fourth, on the Boston University Atheists and Secular Humanists, an affiliate of the Secular Student Alliance.
I love how they report the results of a crashed poll at the end of segment four 
Unfortunately, I can’t embed anything, but the segments were excellent. Go check them out.
Permalink ~
10.26.09
Posted in College Atheists, General, Politics, Secular Coalition for America at 9:00 am by Hemant Mehta
This is a program I’ve been eagerly looking forward to ever since we began discussing it.
Last year, the Secular Student Alliance and the Secular Coalition for America began talking about getting non-religious students up on Capitol Hill. It was a service the SSA wanted to offer students and it was a key reason we were eager to help form the SCA in the first place several years ago.
Our thinking was: how amazing would it be to get our students positions as interns in Washington, D.C. over the summer? What if they could work with the Secular Coalition and lobby alongside them?
Could it lead to a generation of non-theists eager to get involved in politics? Perhaps even persuade them to run for office one day?
The Christian Right has been doing this for generations. Just read this 2004 New York Times piece about the fundamentalist Patrick Henry College:
Of the nearly 100 interns working in the White House this semester, 7 are from the roughly 240 students enrolled in the four-year-old Patrick Henry College, in Purcellville. An eighth intern works for the president’s re-election campaign. A former Patrick Henry intern now works on the paid staff of the president’s top political adviser, Karl Rove. Over the last four years, 22 conservative members of Congress have employed one or more Patrick Henry interns in their offices or on their campaigns, according to the school’s records.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
We need to get our own people — rational, science-oriented, equal-rights-for-all-advocating people — working in D.C.
We’re finally ready to launch that program.
We want secular college students to apply for the Secular Coalition for America’s Capitol Hill Scholars Program.
While we can’t guarantee that you’ll land an internship on Capitol Hill, the Secular Coalition will work with you to get your resume and cover letter through the door to elected offices and do everything in our power to help you land a highly coveted internship on Capitol Hill.
Applicants who are accepted for internships will then officially become part of our Capitol Hill Scholars Program, where we will offer you fantastic learning and networking opportunities and the tools and skills you need to be a nontheist advocate on Capitol Hill.
We also hope to offer a stipend for students who are part of the Scholars Program based on financial need.
If I were still in college, I would be jumping at this opportunity. The chance to do something meaningful, the chance to advocate for issues I care about, the chance to make professional contacts? Hands down, this would be a fantastic way to spend my summer.
The SSA and the SCA will be developing this program over the next few years, but there’s no better time to get involved in Washington. It’s an exciting time to be an atheist for a variety of reasons, but the chance to get a seat at the table on Capitol Hill is one I never thought would come this soon.
Permalink ~
10.02.09
Posted in Jesse Galef, Secular Coalition for America at 8:54 am by Jesse Galef
Have you seen this person?
Why the hell not?Just a quick post to say that I’m in Burbank, California for the Atheist Alliance International Convention!
If you’re here too, let me know! For the most part, I’ll be at the Secular Coalition for America table in the exhibit hall, so I shouldn’t be difficult to find.
Here’s a tip though: I’m Jesse, not Hemant. Curlier hair and lighter skin.
If you come say hello, I’ll give you a spiffy “Secular Values Voter” button! Because honestly, religious people who care about abortion aren’t the only ‘Values Voters.’
Permalink ~
09.30.09
Posted in Jesse Galef, Politics, Secular Coalition for America at 11:01 am by Jesse Galef
When the details and effects of the DC Voucher Program are examined, there should be no question that should be considered an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state. I’m not addressing the program’s efficacy or effect on public schools – others can debate that – but regardless, it is an affront to religious liberty and the nonreligious community.
Since commenters seem skeptical, I’ll explain, laying out the case I used in my debate last night.
Nobody should be taxed to pay for another person’s religious training, nor should the government encourage certain religious practices over others.
In a 5-4 decision in Zelman v. Simmons Harris, the Supreme Court narrowly found the particular voucher program in Ohio to be constitutional. But it did so specially mentioning the importance of requirements and provisions in the Ohio program – provisions that are absent in the DC program.
The first difference is a familiar problem. Unlike the Ohio voucher program, which prohibits participating schools from discriminating, the DC program has a specific exemption for religious schools participating in the vouchers. They are allowed to discriminate in their hiring on the basis of religion, meaning that teachers’ access to federal money is affected by their religious affiliation. This should sound familiar – it’s the biggest ongoing controversy with the Faith-Based Initiative program.
“Current voucher policies… essentially push students into Christian Association and Catholic schools, pricing out independent (non-religious) schools and Hebrew Schools”
Another key difference is that, unlike the Ohio Voucher program, the DC Voucher Program gives parents incentives to choose religious schools. In Zelman, the Supreme Court wrote that such programs could not have “financial incentives that skew the program towards religious schools.” They found that the Ohio program accomplished this by requiring a copay and capping the cost. In their program, private secular and private religious schools would cost the same for these students, and each would cost more than the public, non-sectarian schools.
DC Vouchers are different. There’s no copay, and the government will give a set maximum of $7,500. That’s conveniently enough to cover the whole tuition for most private religious schools – but not private secular schools. A Rutgers study that came out in July 2009 found that the average cost of religious schools was about $7,700 per child. The cost for secular schools was twice as high. They concluded that the difference has
“clear implications for voucher programs, since current voucher policies are funded at amounts that cover costs at only a select subset of private schools. They essentially push students into Christian Association and Catholic schools, pricing out independent (non-religious) schools and Hebrew schools.”
The program is focused on low-income families in bad neighborhoods. Offering $7,500 towards private school doesn’t mean the parents can choose any school they want – it means parents can choose any religious school they want. They can’t afford to pay the additional seven or eight thousand dollars.
It is fundamental to the separation of church and state that government should never encourage or endorse certain religious practices over others. And the DC Voucher Program does just that, encouraging parents to send their children to religious schools and receive religious educations.
We might hope that the money would only be going toward a secular education. But many religious schools receiving money through the program don’t even make an effort to separate out their sectarian religious teachings.
For example, the Ambassador Baptist Church Christian School (quite a name, huh?) website states that its “primary mission and goal is to train the students in the knowledge of God and the Christian way of Life and to provide them with an excellent educational experience…. God’s truth is infused throughout the curriculum and is reinforced in chapel each week.”
Now, I heard testimony in the Senate Office Building yesterday that the Ambassador Baptist Church Christian School is no longer getting voucher money. Could it be because they were using my tax money to promote religion and indoctrinate children? No, the school had financial problems. I don’t know the details of their financial problems, but apparently the program had no problem with over 50 students receiving federal money to be “trained in the knowledge of God and the Christian way of Life.”
It’s not an isolated case. New Macedonia Christian Academy boasts about delivering “a high quality Christian education to our students while instilling a strong Christ-centered academic foundation.” The Dupont Park School encourages “each student to develop a personal relationship with God” and strives to “prepar[e] students for the service of God’s Church, Country, Community and above all for Eternity.”
The program has no problem with over 50 students receiving federal money to be “trained in the knowledge of God and the Christian way of Life.”
What is this if not religious instruction? As the Supreme Court said in Everson vs. Board of Education,“No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt, to teach or practice religion.”
Now, that outrages me as a taxpayer. But it’s also children who are being harmed. Unlike the Wisconsin Voucher program, the DC program has no required “opt-out” option for students who wish not to participate in the religious activities. Students are priced into religious schools where they have no guarantee that they won’t be proselytized.
And it’s happening. The 2008 US Department of Education Report found that, when students leaving the program were asked why they left, 8% said that “religious activities at the private school make the child uncomfortable”. I find that number to be remarkable, and it doesn’t tell us how many children are put into uncomfortable religious situations but don’t leave the program.
Nonreligious Americans are a growing population, and the American Religious Identification Survey report that came out this month found that 18% of DC residents are not affiliated with a religion. How are they supposed to participate in the DC Voucher program? The way pricing is arranged, they can only afford to choose religious schools, but what if they don’t want to be surrounded by a religious climate and receive a ‘christ-centered’ education?
We need to end this program. It misuses taxpayer dollars on religious education and discrimination, it encourages certain religious practices over others, and it puts parents and students into uncomfortable positions of choosing between their wallet and their freedom of conscience.
Permalink ~
09.29.09
Posted in Jesse Galef, Politics, Secular Coalition for America at 9:03 pm by Jesse Galef
I just got back from the DC Young Democrats-sponsored debate on the DC Voucher program. My side — opposing the program — lost by a single vote, but I really enjoyed myself and heard from various members of the audience that I did a great job.
We only had an introduction and conclusions, so I used my conclusion period as a rebuttal. It’s usually my favorite part of debates, and I wasn’t going to miss it. Mine went (from memory):
“I’m glad that Councilmember Thomas at least tried to address my arguments, but I was disappointed by the weak response. Notice what he did: he said that he knows there is no religious pressure on children because he’s been to Saint Andrews and there wasn’t a problem. He’s singling out one school, but how can he say that there’s no problem in the other schools? If there were no pressure at all, why are 8% of students leaving the program citing uncomfortable religious pressure as their reason? That even ignores the students who experience pressure but don’t leave.
Councilmember Thomas rightly said that education is an essential part of our democracy. So is the Constitution. Councilmember Thomas said that we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. I say we shouldn’t throw out the Constitution. I’ll close with a quote from Justice Souter’s dissent in Zelman [who also quotes Agostini v Felton]:
“If there were an excuse for giving short shrift to the Establishment Clause, it would probably apply here. But there is no excuse. Constitutional limitations are placed on government to preserve constitutional values in hard cases, like these. ‘[C]onstitutional lines have to be drawn, and on one side of every one of them is an otherwise sympathetic case that provokes impatience with the Constitution and with the line. But constitutional lines are the price of constitutional government.’”
I’ll really miss Justice Souter.
I had a blast, and tomorrow I’ll try to post the full argument I made.
Permalink ~
09.28.09
Posted in Jesse Galef, Politics, Secular Coalition for America at 12:56 pm by Jesse Galef
For those of you in the DC area, the DC Young Democrats invited me (Jesse) to participate in an Oxford-style debate tomorrow night and you should come! For those of you not in the DC area, I’ll still be in the debate, but you probably shouldn’t travel just to hear me.
The topic is the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (Vouchers). I’ll be one of the three panelists speaking in favor of the resolution, which reads:
BE IT RESOLVED, the District of Columbia should stop accepting new students into the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (sometimes referred to as the DC voucher program) and should end the program once the children who are already in the program have finished their schooling. [Flyer (pdf)]
The Secular Coalition objects to the DC voucher program because, as it’s written, the program violates the separation of church and state. We have no position on vouchers for secular schools, but when it comes to taxpayer money being used for religious instruction in religious institutions that discriminate on the basis of faith… we’re against that. You can read more in our position paper.
Joining me in supporting the resolution are Tanya Clay House (Dir. Public Policy, People For the American Way) and Iris Toyer (Pres., Parents United for the DC Public Schools).
Opposing the resolution will be Harry Thomas, Jr. (DC Councilmember – Ward 5), Virginia Walden Ford (Exec. Dir., DC Parents for School Choice), Gregory Cork, and (Pres. & CEO, Washington Scholarship Fund).
At the end of the debate, the members of DC Young Democrats vote on who won, and that determines the group’s official position on the issue.
Our perspective is often overlooked in the discussion, so come by and support the separation of church and state!
LOCATION
Jack Morton Auditorium @ 805 21st St., NW, Washington, DC
(just 3 blocks from the Foggy Bottom Metro station).
DATE & TIME
September 29th from 7:00pm – 8:30pm
Permalink ~
09.21.09
Posted in Jesse Galef, Politics, Secular Coalition for America at 5:05 pm by Jesse Galef
A quick note before I leave work for the day – The Secular Coalition for America just sent out letters to members of the Senate Finance Committee urging them to oppose two proposed amendments to the healthcare reform bill.
Senator Orrin Hatch has submitted amendment #C10 requesting that funding for Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage be restored. Senator Michael Enzi has submitted amendment #C15 to ensure that conscience protections are applied in the healthcare reform bill. Please oppose these two amendments. Both of these amendments privilege religious values over patients’ and students’ rights to ethical treatment and medically-accurate information.
Look familiar? These are two fights the secular community won recently. President Obama’s proposed budget earlier this year removed funding for abstinence-only education, mostly because studies shown they hadn’t worked — some studies even found that the programs made things worse, discouraging contraception without actually reducing sex. And Senator Hatch wants to spend $50 million a year on these programs.
There was public outcry over a so-called ‘conscience protection’ clause the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was pushing right before Bush’s term ended. When Obama took office, he prevented it from taking effect. And now Senator Enzi wants to slip a similar clause into the healthcare reform bill.
I wish we didn’t have to go through this, but it does feel good to be defending positive outcomes for once.
Permalink ~
09.18.09
Posted in GLBT, General, Politics, Secular Coalition for America at 6:00 am by Hemant Mehta
A group of organizations that support religious liberty sent a letter (PDF) to Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday. The coalition includes the American Humanist Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, American Civil Liberties Union, Interfaith Alliance, Center for Inquiry, and the Secular Coalition for America.
The issue at hand is an Office of Legal Counsel memo from 2007 that states the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”) allows for religious discrimination.
The coalition says the memo was wrong, adding that it “threatens core civil rights and religious freedom protections.”
The OLC Memo wrongly asserts that RFRA is “reasonably construed” to require that a federal agency categorically exempt a religious organization from an explicit federal nondiscrimination provision tied to a grant program. Although the OLC Memo’s conclusion is focused on one Justice Department program, its overly-broad and questionable interpretation of RFRA has been cited by other Federal agencies and extended to other programs and grants. The guidance in the OLC Memo is not justified under applicable legal standards and threatens to tilt policy toward an unwarranted end that would damage civil rights and religious liberty.
…
The OLC Memo… stands as one of the most notable examples of the Bush Administration’s attempt to impose a constitutionally questionable and unwise policy — RFRA should not be interpreted or employed as a tool for broadly overriding statutory protections against religious discrimination or to create a broad free exercise right to receive government grants without complying with applicable regulations that protect taxpayers.
The coalition wants the Obama administration to review the memo, withdraw it, and then disavow it.
Of course, this group is right. You can’t give federal money to religious groups and then allow them to fire gays, atheists, and anyone else they deem unworthy. If they accept the money, they need to abide by the law, and the law doesn’t allow for that type of discrimination.
Will the administration pay any attention? Obama’s track record on progressives’ issues hasn’t been what I had hoped it would be. But these organizations represent a huge segment of the people who voted for him — liberals are members or supporters of many of the groups on this list.
In any case, it is very cool to see so many organizations working together on this shared agenda item. The more we can stick together, the more affect we’ll have on the political process.
Permalink ~
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
