Missouri Right-to-Pray Amendment Has a (Literally) Hidden Purpose

May 26, 2012 By Paul Fidalgo 3 Comments

Let's dirty this up a bit, shall we?

Soon Missourians will take to the polls to decide the fate of a new amendment to the state’s constitution that would, at first blush, do nothing.

Surely I jest. Let’s look, with a little help from BallotPedia. The measure would ensure…

  • That the right of Missouri citizens to express their religious beliefs shall not be infringed;

Well, that’s already in the U.S. Constitution, it’s a basic right of all Americans, so no big deal there…

  • That school children have the right to pray and acknowledge God voluntarily in their schools;

While there’s a prohibition from prayers being coerced or directed by school officials and teachers and the like, no one can stop a student from praying or giving the Big Imaginary Guy a shout-out on their own, so once again, no harm no foul…

  • That all public schools shall display the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

Well, if they must. It’s a handy thing to have around, you know, for reference.

Good then! A pointless ballot measure intended merely to get some excited conservatives to the polls. Vote for it, don’t vote for it, whatever. It won’t matter.

But wait.

It can’t be a ploy to get the religious vote out to the polls on Election Day, because it’s going to be voted on August 7, not in November. But if it’s so benign, so redundant, and not intended to drive turnout, what’s the point?

You see, there’s more to this measure than meets the eye. And I mean that literally, because what will not meet the eye of the voters is the full description of what the rest of the proposed amendment would do.

For one (emphasis mine):

. . . the General Assembly and the governing bodies of political subdivisions may extend to ministers, clergypersons, and other individuals the privilege to offer invocations or other prayers at meetings or sessions of the General Assembly or governing bodies

This feels to me like a middle finger to groups like FFRF and American Atheists who regularly challenge this practice. I’m sure it already happens in Missouri all the time, but here they are trying to codify it in their constitution, though I would imagine that it’s still not going to square with the U.S. Constitution.

There’s more!

. . . this section shall not be construed to expand the rights of prisoners in state or local custody beyond those afforded by the laws of the United States, excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or with the rights of others.

The ACLU declared back in 2011 that this section was an overt attempt to limit the free exercise of religion for prisoners, which I didn’t quite see at first, though I got that it’s at the very least unsettling in how it goes out of its way to single out the incarcerated as not being invited to enjoy these new-but-not-new rights. But of course, then you realize what’s really at the meat of this, and it all falls together (emphasis mine):

. . . that students may express their beliefs about religion in written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their work; that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs;

Ah.

In other words, students may essentially opt out of their education if it contradicts the Bronze Age nonsense they’ve been told to believe at home and at church. A student could theoretically claim adherence to Genesis in biology class, and not suffer academically for turning their nose up the course’s assignments, lessons, and readings.

This is a great way to make sure your state is as irrelevant as possible in the information economy.

I’m also troubled by the first part of the quoted paragraph, not because I’m all about religious discrimination, but it sure smells fishy to me in that I expect this language is there to make sure that for a project on, say, geology, a student could insist that the Earth is 6000 years old, and not receive a failing grade because, hey, that’d be discrimination.

And now we can tie this all back to the prisoners. The authors of the amendment want to make sure that students can opt out of anything that conflicts with their religion, but they don’t want his language to be construed as offering this same right to those in prison. The last thing they want is for a Muslim (or an atheist, even) to be able to claim that something required of him while incarcerated is in conflict with his beliefs. That’s just for the Christians.

And just so we’re clear, none of this stuff — about the prisoners, the clergy at public meetings, or the students skirting science education — is going to appear in the summary on the ballot on which people will actually vote. Almost no one actually deciding this question will see any of this.

It’s telling that even the amendment’s supporters don’t really know how to explain it. Here’s Missouri State Senator Jim Lembke making an attempt:

I think what this does is it tries to protect those rights that are already secure but now that we have challenges over the decades and over 231 years in the courts challenging our religious freedom I think it’s better for the states if we do make it clear that you have these freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and that we spell it out.

There was a sentence in there somewhere, I’m sure.

(Thanks to Brian for the tip.)

Filed Under: Education, General, Politics, Science 3 Comments

Sam Harris and Bruce Schneier’s Debate on Profiling Muslims at the Airport

May 26, 2012 By Hemant Mehta 3 Comments

What do you do when you’re sitting in an airport waiting for your delayed flight?

Read all 13,000+ words of the ongoing debate on the efficacy of profiling Muslims at airport security checkpoints between Sam Harris (We’d be crazy not to profile them!) and Bruce Schneier (You have no idea what you’re talking about).

In a nutshell, Harris argues that the suicidal terrorists who want to use airplanes to kill innocent people are obviously Muslims and we’d be foolish not to throw more security resources in their direction — and less security in the way of, say, old ladies (think Betty White).

Schneier just doesn’t think that’s possible to pull off for a variety of reasons. It adds much more complexity into the system to pinpoint “potential Muslims” (he argues that the combination of simplicity + randomness is better than what Harris proposes), there’s no real good way of doing that even if we wanted to, and the costs of implementing the (flawed) system just wouldn’t be worth it.

Some highlights:

Schneier: Honestly, I don’t care about the political correctness of this. Profiling is bad security. I understand that it intuitively seems obvious to you, and that your gut tells you it’s better, but it’s not. And I am going to continue to explain why.

…

Harris: The whole purpose of my previous articles was to suggest that we should have well-trained screeners who can use their discretion to spend less time focusing on the least threatening people — and that focusing on them purely for the sake of appearing fair could well get many people killed. I wrote the articles I would want to have written in the event that we have another terrorist incident involving a jihadist on an airplane. Of course, if a plane gets blown up by someone who looked and acted like Betty White, I will issue a public apology.

…

Harris: Do you think positive incentives would have the same effect? What if screeners won a million dollars every time they caught a real terrorist? I’m guessing they would focus on more likely suspects.

Schneier: Rewards can be a great motivational tool, but you have to be careful what you motivate. Remember, we don’t want screeners to focus on what they believe the threat is. We want them to focus on the actual threat.

Harris: Again, I would argue that a screener’s beliefs and reality can converge more than you allow.

Much like the previous installments of this series, it’s a thought-provoking conversation. As I said before, I’m less interested in who’s right and who’s wrong — it’s just really fascinating to read two intelligent people debate something so politically incorrect.

Having read the whole piece, Schneier is more convincing when it comes to the matter at hand. Even if Harris is right that Muslims deserve more selective screening at airports, Schneier makes the case that profiling would be the wrong way to go about fixing that. It may be ethically wrong, but (more to the point here) it just doesn’t work in practice.

If you don’t have time to read it all now, Instapaper the whole thing and read it later.

There’s something to be said for a debate that’s not done in front of a crowd, where emotions and sentiment can get the best of the audience and the debaters end up playing to the audience instead of to each other. Here, both sides are laid out — very fairly, I believe, to Harris’ credit — and we can decide for ourselves which side makes a better case.

…

Side note: At one point, Harris argues that we “profile” people all the time when making “threat assessments” and it doesn’t make us sexist or racist to do so. For example, even though most men are not rapists, we don’t say women are sexist for being cautious around male strangers. They’re just trying to protect themselves.

I doubt this was intentional, but this is how Harris demonstrates the point:

… imagine hearing the following story from your wife or daughter:

“I did something today that I’m very ashamed of. I was on an elevator alone, and a man got on who made me uncomfortable…”

Of all the examples he could have used…

Filed Under: General 3 Comments

Hustler Magazine Rails Against Conservative Atheist S.E. Cupp… with a Photoshopped Phallus

May 26, 2012 By Lauren Lane 156 Comments

This past week, adult magazine Hustler (published by Larry Flynt) printed a photoshopped picture of S.E. Cupp, a conservative female pundit (who also happens to be an atheist), looking like she’s performing oral sex, with the headline “What Would S.E. Cupp Look Like with a Dick in Her Mouth?”

Image via The Blaze

Here’s what the accompanying article had to say (emphasis mine):

“S.E. Cupp is a lovely young lady who read too much Ayn Rand in high school and ended up joining the dark side. Cupp, an author and media commentator who often shows up on Fox News programs, is undeniably cute. But her hotness is diminished when she espouses dumb ideas like defunding Planned Parenthood. Perhaps the method pictured here is Ms. Cupp’s suggestion for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy.”

Oh, and it also comes with a disclaimer:

“No such picture of S.E. Cupp actually exists. This composite fantasy picture is altered from the original for our imagination, does not depict reality and is not to be taken seriously for any purpose.”

Using a woman’s sexuality to attack her integrity is sexism at its finest. Sure, S.E. Cupp is a proponent of defunding Planned Parenthood (and her book isn’t going to earn her many atheist fans), but this image has nothing to do with her political beliefs and everything to do with the fact that she is an outspoken woman. Half-hearted disclaimer or not, this kind of behavior is despicable, even if it does come from Hustler.

Do candid conservative male pundits have to put up with this kind of abuse? I think not. Women who raise their voices in the public sphere should not have to be afraid of being objectified as a punishment. If you have an issue with what they say, talk about their arguments, not their looks.

Filed Under: General Tagged With: 156 Comments

America’s ‘Evolution’ Problem

May 25, 2012 By Hemant Mehta 21 Comments

Jerry Coyne has published a new paper in the journal Evolution about… well… take a guess.

More specifically, it’s about “Science, Religion, and Society: The Problem of Evolution in America.”

These graphs tell a much larger story (click to enlarge):

Coyne also has a message for science organizations:

… when scientific organizations argue for the compatibility of religion and evolution, or of religion and science in general, they are engaged not in science or philosophy but in theology. That is because accommodationism endorses a particular form of religion — a liberal faith that sees scripture as almost entirely metaphorical. Such a viewpoint marginalizes the many forms of religion whose opposition to evolution is based on stricter adherence to scripture and dogma, as well as those religions, like Catholicism, that endorse a form of Godguided evolution. Scientific organizations should follow the lead of the Society for the Study of Evolution in maintaining strict neutrality toward faith, avoiding any statement about whether religion is compatible or incompatible with science. When we make official statements about the need to teach evolution, let us stick to our expertise — the science — and leave theology to the theologians.

There really is no way to reconcile science and faith without stretching one of them far beyond its intended definition.

Filed Under: General, Science 21 Comments

Must Be One of Those North Carolina Churches…

May 25, 2012 By M J Shepherd 3 Comments

(In response to this post)

Filed Under: General, GLBT, Humor 3 Comments

Secular Students of the Military: West Point

May 25, 2012 By Kate Donovan 1 Comment

This is the second post in a series of interviews with secular students and leaders in the U.S. military, inspired by comments on this post. Different Academy students correctly pointed out that each branch of the military has a different culture and levels of religiosity, yet you will see here that all are fairly religious. Non-theistic student groups in the military do not have the same ease-of-formation or resources as found on civilian campuses. So, to get a handle on what secular students are experiencing in the military, I spoke with members of non-theistic groups at each academy.

…

I corresponded with cadets at West Point (The United States Military Academy), involved in their Secular Student Alliance (SSA). They are, like the secular group at the Naval Academy, unofficial. They too, have encountered obstacles in group formation. The following is an interview with a member of the executive board:

A few members of West Point Secular Student Alliance

Tell me about your group.

We’re affiliated with the SSA.  We were established in the Fall semester of 2011.  Last year we were fairly active, with about 4-5 members showing up to each meeting.  We made one attempt at starting a reading list, but there wasn’t much interest (largely because not many cadets have the time to read a book a week).  Other than that, we’ve had one public service trip, where three cadets spent a day at a food shelter.  Each attempt to get another trip approved was shot down by USMA leadership. 

We did have a lecture by Dave Silverman and Jason Torpy, which had great turnout (probably 30 or so people).  A lot of the attendees were religious cadets who wanted to see “the other side” and ask questions.  This year we’ve had much higher attendance at weekly meetings, but haven’t had any large events.  We made requests for trips to Rock Beyond Belief and the Reason Rally, but weren’t able to do either.

Are you recognized by the Academy? If so, how was that process? If not, why, and what has been your experience?

We aren’t.  Our first attempts at official recognition were shot down outright.  The former director of cadet activities did not want to support any secular organization, and didn’t see the point of our existence.  Our last club president described him as “blasé and a stalwart in his opposition to us forming.”  This semester, we developed a formal request for recognition memorandum and sent it to the office of the Commandant.  This memo outlined several of the ongoing instances of intolerance at the Academy, and the importance of being recognized.  Afterwards we were directed to speak with the new director of cadet activities, who has been very helpful.  Although he appears uncomfortable with us forming, he is a professional, and is not allowing his personal beliefs to get in the way of his duty.  He has given us reason to believe that we will be recognized sometime in the near future.  Currently, the Academy’s club program is being revised.  After the revision process is completed this summer, we will know if our efforts were successful.

Are you able to post advertisements, host events, and travel with the same freedom as other groups of your size?

No.  We aren’t allowed access to the same resources as other clubs.  We have been denied many requests for trip sections, and are not able to take part in Club Night, where recognized clubs are able to recruit members by tabling.  We have been denied use of the mess hall slides as a means to advertise for the SSA in the past.  After some of our leadership met with the deputy Commandant, we were assured that we would be allowed to use the mess hall slides to advertise if we ever have another event to publish, but without resources or authorization to host large events, it’s not particularly useful.

What’s been the best and worst experiences you’ve had as a secular group at the Academy?

The best have been our weekly meetings and summer program.  Those of us who have taken part in weekly meetings have had great times bonding with one another, sharing ideas, watching movies and videos, and just generally being a group.  Our introduction of NTCT [Non-Theist Chaplains Time -- see next question] last year provided cadets who would otherwise be required to choose between church and humiliating work details, with the opportunity to enjoy the same environment of camaraderie and relaxation as their theist peers.  As far as I know, this is the first place that this has happened in the military.

The worst experiences we’ve had have been repeated denial of equal opportunities for travel and activity as other clubs.  We have been denied the ability to take trips, and even had a policy written as a response to our desire to advertise, which effectively made it possible for us to be formally shut out from access to the mess hall slides.  Most of our members have experienced some form of direct discrimination.  The most common was harassment during Cadet Basic Training, although there have been other instances in the classroom, and in professional situations.

You mentioned NTCT, Non-Theist Chaplains Time. What is that?

Until last year, there was no alternative to religious services during Basic Training. [Kate says: Religious services provide some kind of snacks and dessert. This is the only time during basic training for sweets or snack food, and open to only those who attend have attended the services.] In regular [non-West Point] basic, I’ve never heard of any alternative, and we had some trouble getting one set up here. There was a decent amount of resistance from the chaplain’s office, but eventually they let us have it, as long as we had a chaplain’s assistant sit in on all of our meetings. They sent a VERY Christian staff sergeant, in uniform, to oversee and make sure that the religious voice was present, and we weren’t encouraging the new cadets to be atheists. Overall it was a good program, and this summer we’re trying to make it a permanent part of cadet basic. We have one chaplain that fully supports us, but one isn’t enough in a complex bureaucracy.

What are the West Point SSA’s goals?

Our goals are to be able to provide non-theist cadets of all sorts with a community of acceptance, while ensuring that the culture of the academy at large shifts away from its current state of religious exceptionalism.

So why have students joined West Point SSA? [This question was open to all members of the SSA]

“I feel like I’m constantly surrounded by fundamentalists. I know this isn’t necessarily true, but that’s the feeling I get. I work to censor myself most of the time because I know being too vocal could be a detriment, even if it is minor.”

…

“I want to see it grow so that nontheists have a larger voice and so that they don’t feel like they can’t associate themselves with such an organization for fear of reprisal”

…

“To show a stereotypically conservative culture that atheists don’t have horns and dance around a flaming pentagram under the full moon. Also because I enjoy hearing different viewpoints and learning about why people think the way they do.”

…

More about religion at West Point can be found in this research by cadet Blake Page.

The interview with Naval Academy Atheists and Freethinkers is available here.

NOTE: A number of cadets contributed to this post, on condition of anonymity. They are not speaking in their official capacity. Statements are not intended to reflect official policy.

Filed Under: General, Military Atheists, Secular Student Alliance 1 Comment

Another Student Challenges His High School’s Graduation Prayer

May 25, 2012 By Kelley Freeman 72 Comments

A few years ago, I graduated from Irmo High School in Columbia, South Carolina. Over the past few years, Irmo has been no stranger to controversy. In 1998, they cancelled a concert by the Indigo Girls due to the duo’s homosexuality. During my senior year, they tried to block the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance — in fact, the principal resigned over it due to his “professional beliefs and religious convictions.” While I was still there, they had a graduation prayer that was put up to a vote by seniors during English class… (oh, that I knew then what I know now!)

Not only did this take up valuable class time, it’s illegal.

Luckily, despite being in an exceptionally conservative area, a student at Irmo has challenged the graduation prayer.

Max Nielson is a senior at Irmo High School, an Eagle Scout, an International Baccalaureate diploma candidate and… an atheist! Thanks to the story of Harrison Hopkins, a fellow South Carolina atheist, Max learned of the resources available to challenge the graduation prayer at Irmo High School.

Max Nielson

He emailed the principal at Irmo, who responded to him rather quickly, directing Max to the district policy on prayers for school events:

Benedictions and/or invocations at high school graduations and athletic events are permissible on the following basis.

  • The use of an invocation and/or benediction at a high school graduation exercise will be determined by a majority vote of the graduating senior class with the advice and counsel of the principal.

  • The use of an invocation and/or benediction at high school varsity athletic events will rest within the discretion of participating athletes, cheerleaders, band members and other student participants with the advice and counsel of the principal.

  • The invocation and/or benediction, if used, will be given by a student volunteer.

  • Consistent with the principle of equal liberty of conscience, the invocation and/or benediction will be nonsectarian and nonproselytizing in nature.

What that basically means is that, because there is an established district policy, the principal can’t (or won’t) back down on the prayer. Max has been in contact with the Freedom From Religion Foundation to go through with this challenge. Keep in mind the district is notoriously conservative, so while there may be a lot of support for Max from faculty members and administrators, it could be dangerous to their jobs if they decide to speak out.

South Carolina has something called the “South Carolina Student Led Messages Act” which basically means that school boards or districts can’t alter, modify, review, recommend or otherwise censor an opening or closing graduation speech. A student chosen to give a speech at graduation could invoke Allah or Zeus or whomever without any consequence.

However, Irmo doesn’t do that. There are two speakers for graduation in addition to the student chosen to give the prayer. The prayer is a completely separate entity, complete with its own committee and everything. All of this is put up to a vote, but considering the environment and student population, the odds are slim to none that the prayer would not happen.

I remember voting against this in homeroom, but it was something that made me nervous and there were a lot of students who were openly supportive of the prayer. It’s great that Max is stepping up to challenge the prayer at Irmo High School’s graduation. The rights of the minority are not something to be voted on, and it’ll be interesting to see how this case unfolds.

If you’d like to get in touch with the district expressing your support of Max, please (politely) contact Irmo principal Rob Weinkle and district Superintendent Dr. Stephen W. Hefner.

Filed Under: FFRF, General, Secular Student Alliance 72 Comments

Bad Fences Make Bad Neighbors

May 25, 2012 By Bengie 34 Comments

(In response to this post)

Filed Under: General, GLBT, Humor 34 Comments

When It Comes to the Internet, Nothing Fails Like Faith

May 25, 2012 By Hemant Mehta 29 Comments

My latest piece for the Washington Post‘s On Faith blog is on how the Internet is killing faith. (See? It’s not just for porn.)

An excerpt:

It wasn’t long ago when statements made in a pulpit were simply assumed to be true. Now, a child with an iPhone in the pew can find ample evidence contradicting whatever the men of God are saying. That “true story” your pastor is telling? Snopes.com debunked it long ago. Gay marriage is destructive, he says? Thousands of YouTube videos made by gays and lesbians in love — as well as other Christians — can attest otherwise. Evolution is a liberal conspiracy? TalkOrigins.org will show you how to respond to every argument on the Creationist side. Abstinence-only sex education is working? Not according to the new scientific study you just read.

…

This is why atheists love the Internet. We can tell Christians the emperor’s not wearing any clothes. We can question the dogma they’ve simply accepted all their lives. We can expose religious frauds. We can explain the many unfortunate consequences of unquestioned belief. The Internet is blind faith’s worst nightmare.

If you loved me, you would comment.

Filed Under: General 29 Comments

Is Atheism a Force to Be Reckoned with in America?

May 25, 2012 By Hemant Mehta 13 Comments

Dave Silverman appeared on The Alyona Show (with substitute host Abby Martin) Wednesday night to talk about the state of atheism in America.

It’s a long segment with time for some substantive discussion — pretty unusual for television news airing in America.



Filed Under: General 13 Comments
« Older Posts