U.S. District Judge Fred Biery agreed with them, saying that the graduation prayers would “violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.”

Unfortunately, the district appealed and the 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals took their side. They said since it was a student-led prayer and not a school-sponsored prayer, it was ok. Corwyn Schultz ended up missing his own graduation ceremony.

Anyway, that was last year. Why bring it up now?

Two reasons.

First, Newt Gingrich has specifically called out Judge Biery in several stump speeches, calling for him to be fired because of his ruling against the school district:

“If you read his ruling, it is so outrageously dictatorial and anti-religious that he [Biery] clearly does not understand America,” Gingrich said. “We don’t need judges who don’t understand America…We need to reset the judiciary, explain to them the limits of the American Constitution and prove to them that judges appointed for life cannot be dictators and they cannot threaten our children with jail for saying the word ‘prayer.’”

Second, Americans United decided to file an “amended complaint” back in October. Basically, in the months since filing the original lawsuit, they found lots of evidence that points to the school having a hand in promoting Christianity.

Our motion — which includes photographs taken from inside the school and videoclips from its graduations and football games — details how both sets of events have consistently featured Christian prayers and how the school district has tightly controlled these events’ programming and contents.

Instead of going to trial again, the two sides have settled out of court.

Judge Biery wrote the opinion (PDF) to settle the case once and for all. It’s three pages and you should all read it.

Even better is the short personal statement made by Biery at the end of the opinion:

During the course of this litigation, many have played a part:

To the United States Marshal Service and local police who have provided heightened security: Thank you.

To those Christians who have venomously and vomitously cursed the Court family and threatened bodily harm and assassination: In His name, I forgive you.

To those who have prayed for my death: Your prayers will someday be answered, as inevitably trumps probability.

To those in executive and legislative branches of government who have demagogued this case for their own political goals: You should be ashamed of yourselves.

To the lawyers who have advocated professionally and respectfully for their clients respective positions: Bless you.”

Brilliant.

(Thanks to Tom for the link!)

The way our 501(c)(3) status works, we can only fund charities based in the United States (regardless of what they do). This is a chance to expand that reach:

Humanists in Australia are now moving from questions to action, working rapidly to establish an FBB Australia. Though based on the same model and sharing our brand and name, the new foundation will be governed independently and will focus on Australia-based charities and members.

“Foundation Beyond Belief is an idea whose time has come in Australia,” says Avi Chapman, lead organizer of the effort. “Aussies are both generous and secular — a perfect fit for the Foundation. We’re very excited to be working to bring this concept to fruition down under.”

If you’d like to stay informed about the progress of FBB Australia, you can sign up for updates here!

There’s something beautiful about the way Mike stops the Christian protestors by quoting their own book right back to them.

“My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege…”

That, from a president who was a Christian, a Sunday school teacher, and a Republican… those days are long gone.

Al Stefanelli has a nice screenshot of the November 14^th, 1907 New York Times article about Roosevelt’s letter, along with further analysis:

How long do we have to wait until an American president makes a statement that refreshing again?

The crowd waits for Santorum

A family that was probably homeschooled came in at the same time as I did — a troop of about seven kids and their mother, all the girls wearing ankle length skirts with hair that went past their shoulders, the oldest boy in a navy blue suit. They were carrying flags, took pictures in front of the campaign bus, and bore signs that read “Too young to vote, old enough to care” and “I’m voting for Bella’s dad.”

A middle-aged man waiting in line behind me observed to his friend that this event had drawn a larger crowd than a Mike Huckabee rally he’d attended in 2008. A woman of about 60 in front of me was explaining to her neighbor why she had not been a John McCain supporter in that primary: “He wanted to impress us because he was willing to reach across the aisle. Well, I don’t want someone who will reach across the aisle. We’ve been doing that, and look where it’s gotten us.”

The sections we were directed to made up about a third of the arena’s 11,000-person capacity. These seats quickly filled up, so they had to open a full half of the venue. Media estimates put the Thursday afternoon crowd at more than 4,000.

While waiting in the stands, I continued to hear revealing snippets of conversation. A man told the woman next to him that “20% of this nation are on some kind of welfare,” and she responded that she “hadn’t heard that exact figure, but it doesn’t surprise me.” Another woman explained that she was not a Ron Paul fan because ”he doesn’t support Israel. And that’s a biggie.” An album of instrumental bluegrass covers of worship songs played over the sound system, which was tolerable. Unfortunately, someone switched it to smooth jazz.

Jeremy Burton, ORU’s Director of Public Relations announced that the event was a few minutes from starting and that the opinions of Santorum were not necessarily those of the university. A potential tragedy interrupted, though. Very soon after his first announcement, he returned to ask any physicians in the house to head to the audio booth. That shut the audience up. The situation was pretty serious. A man walked down the aisle nearest to me to shout “People of God, pray for this man. They’re doing chest compressions, and he’s not responding.” Burton returned to the microphone to announce that paramedics were removing the man, and to repeat the call for prayer. “At Oral Roberts University,” he informed us, “that’s important.”

After several tense minutes, ORU President Mark Rutland stepped up to the lectern but offered no new information. He said that he would lead us in prayer, but instructed us to “pray in your own way, in your own faith.” Men like him never seem to consider that there those who prefer not to pray at all. The vast majority of the crowd bowed their heads, and he prayed like someone used to doing this publicly. He concluded with “in Jesus’ name, amen.”

When the event finally started, we did not receive any meaningful information about the man’s condition. The best I could find later was a reference on a local news site to a “man in the crowd with a health condition” who was treated. I can only hope that the lack of concern in the media (most accounts don’t mention the incident at all) reflects a lack of serious result.

Santorum Prays Before His Speech

Kara Evans, the president of the ORU College Republicans, introduced Matt Pinnell, the chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party and an ORU alumnus. He declared that his goal, and that of the 49 other state chairman, was to make Barack Obama a one-term president. This was met with uproarious applause, the first of the day. He said that it was his idea to bring Santorum to ORU, “the most renowned Christian university in the nation.” He added that if “the New York Times, or anyone else has a problem with that, they can email me at Matt@IDon’tGiveARip.com.” This was met with laughter and further applause. I expect that he will run for office in the not too distant future.

He then re-introduced Rutland, who also said nice things about the “world-renowned” ORU, quoted Will Rogers, and finally introduced the man himself. After the tense wait, I was glad he kept it short.

Santorum stepped onto the court with his two oldest children and was met with a standing ovation. He assured everyone that he had participated in the “very appropriate” prayer and expressed his best wishes.

He joked about his seven children and how he was doing his part to fix the “demographic problem” associated with social security and medical care. He also spoke about his youngest daughter, Bella, who had a “scary health time” recently. He mentioned she had a “miraculous recovery,” that Tulsa was his last stop before returning home to see her. “Tuesday was a good night,” he said, referring to his victory speech in St, Charles, MO after winning the non-binding primary in that state along with the Minnesota caucus. “But wow, this is amazing,” he said said of the Tulsa crowd.

I had wondered if the advertised “town hall” format had been abandoned, as I saw no microphones available, and Santorum settled the question. He explained that he would only be taking queries from students, specifically those on the stage behind the lectern, not the audience. He described this as “Socratic.”

He launched into the meat of his address by declaring the 2012 election to be the most important of any American’s life “no matter how old” they are and enumerating all the things it was about. This was when the alarms started to go off in my head.

Yes, this is an election about a president who is allowing things to occur in the world, almost apathetically, to rally forces that have been out there over the last few decades, that want to do harm to America. And we have the audacity of calling it an ‘Arab Spring,’ and what we see now is that the Arab Spring is an icy, cold winter of radical Islamists.

Santorum included Egypt as part of this “icy, cold winter.” The idea he seemed to express, and which the audience seemed to agree with, was that Egypt’s entire uprising consisted of “radical Islamists” who opposed “an ally of the United States and Israel.” He blamed Obama for “standing by.”

It is beyond dispute that the Islamist parties who now control Egypt’s parliament were (unfortunately) popularly elected, and Hosni Mubarak was a corrupt dictator. But these facts did not seem relevant to Santorum or his audience. It was odd to hear a candidate for president not even pay lip service to the idea that the United States promotes and spreads democracy around the world.

That's an awful lot of radical Muslims

Santorum went on to state unequivocally that Iran is “building a nuclear weapon.”

And the president reluctantly fights with Congress, just to do the minimum to slow them down. And then we see in Syria, the only reason the president of the United States withdraws our embassy from Syria, which he was that put it in place, to reward the thug Bashar Assad and his reign of terror over the people of Syria, we rewarded him by placing an embassy there. And the only reason we removed it, because they wouldn’t guarantee the safety of the embassy, not because we wanted to pull out as a sign of lack of support for this thug.

I could only gape at the speed with which he switched to calling Mubarak an “ally” and Bashar al-Assad a “thug.” The difference in the ruling styles of the two men is one of degree: Assad is more brutal, and putting an embassy in his country was indeed a mistake. The difference in kind between the Mubarak and Assad is not about how they rule their people, but in how they relate to the United States. Santorum did not pretend otherwise, and the audience did not care.

I was even more taken aback at how smoothly he transitioned from promoting amoral foreign policy realism to trumpeting Judeo-Christian values.

Ladies and gentlemen we have a president of the United States who on every single count, and I haven’t mentioned the one, his slow dissemination of the freedom of religion [applause], freedom of conscience [louder applause].

Standing up and talking about abortion as if having life and being pregnant was something that would deny people their dreams. This callousness toward life, and family, and faith — and even open hostility. This is the president of the United States today. This is a president who has a fundamentally different view of America than what made America the greatest country in the history of the world.

He asked us to imagine a less accountable second-term President Obama, immune to “political considerations.” Such a president would do enormous damage internationally, in Santorum’s view. He cited Israel as an example, “who stand and plead for our help.” He referred to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta “condemning” Israel and “inviting the rest of the world to do the same.” I did not know what he was talking about, but all around me, people emitted sighs of exasperation at the claim. My best guess now is that he was talking about reports that Panetta is concerned that Israel may strike Iran soon. The news was based on comments from anonymous officials, not any public statement, and I can find no hint of a condemnation.

From this, he glided right into our healthcare system, which he says Obama has “taken over.” The Affordable Care Act, to Santorum, is fundamentally about liberty.

If the government says they’re gonna give you a right, they can then tell you how to exercise that right [man in audience: "That's right."] You see, our founders believed… [slowly building applause] Our founders believed that rights don’t come from the government.

He then pulled out his pocket Constitution — “the operator’s manual of America.” He pointed out that most pocket Constitutions also print the Declaration of Independence — “the why of America.”

And in that Declaration of Independence is a phrase you folks here in Oklahoma, and I know at Oral Roberts, you know that phrase. And that is: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their [pauses, audience replies "Creator"] with certain unalienable Rights, among them Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  And that is the essence of America.

The left, Santorum thinks, sees the Declaration as an “old, dead letter” and are trying to “ease [it] out.” It is “inconvenient” to liberals because it says “rights come from God instead of the government.”

It’s interesting. When it come to the issue of equality, they’re all for it. They use that term all the time. “Equality! Equality!” Where does equality come from? Do you find equality between men and women, in society, in other cultures in the world? No you do not. No you do not. You find it in Western civilization. You find it because we are a Judeo-Christian country.

Yes, Santorum argued with a straight face that Christianity was responsible for women’s rights.

None of us are equal, from the standpoint of, from a humanistic worldview. What makes us equal? It’s that we’re equal in the eyes of God. [Applause] We all have dignity and worth because of that.

I felt for a moment like he was telling me that, by not believing in a god, I had no rights. I know that this is not the logical conclusion of the statement, but it’s an easy reaction to have when surrounded by such a devout crowd. And the notion that rights come only from God does have a sense of exclusion to it.  Someone who holds this view would probably tell an atheist that she has the same rights as a religious person, but that she doesn’t recognize the source. This is another way of saying that secularists and humanists don’t understand the idea of American the way that Christians do.

Santorum presented this notion in stark terms.

That’s why it’s so hard to take what we have here, and transplant it in other countries. Because what we did here was unique, was different. The French tried to copy us in the French Revolution. Oh, they had their Constitution. But the watchwords of their revolution were three words. Liberty: good. Equality: good. And fraternity: problematic. Because fraternity means each other, brothers, right? Brotherhood, without fatherhood [applause]. Without a creator. And when that happens, and when that happens, then rights don’t from God, they come from each other. And, of course, once you have this radical document of freedom like our Constitution, and you give people the ability of self-government, and they have no rights they have to respect except the ones they give each other, then guess what? You get a guillotine [scattered applause].

He had no problem drawing a parallel between the godless French Revolution and 21st century liberal politics.

We have a president now who believes that government should be able to create rights and force you to exercise them in conformity with what they believe — not the unalienable rights you have. That’s why you see a church in America — I know it’s the Catholic Church, but it’s the Catholic Church first [woman near me: "That's right"]. It won’t be the last if they get away with it [applause].

America, Santorum explained, is the most tolerant country in the world. This is because of our excellence at practicing Judeo-Christian values. But somehow, an exception has been made for “behavior that is against the radical secular ideals of the left.” This is true “particularly if you’re a Christian.” He sees as a sign of this view that both Obama and Hillary Clinton have referred to the freedom of religion as “the freedom of worship.”

Now, I don’t know about you, but my religion goes beyond worship [applause]. What are you doing right here? What are doing right here, at Oral Roberts? You are practicing the freedoms that you’ve been given to educate people consistent with the values of your faith. That is a freedom, not of worship, but it is a religious a freedom, and an important religious freedom [applause].

From this, he transitioned comfortably to complaining about “government getting bigger and bigger,” which leads to “immoral debt.” He promised to “liberate the business community” with “lower taxes and less regulation,” and the audience showed strong approval. Free market capitalism is somehow a part of the package to Christian conservatives. He then narrowed the economic talk to energy issues, which are important to Oklahoma voters.

If we really want to get the business community going, one surefire way is to drive up energy production and lower the cost of energy in this country [standing ovation.] I knew that would get a good number here in Tulsa.

After drawing drawing parallels between the history of energy production in Pennsylvania and Oklahoma, he made clear what kind of “energy production” he was talking about.

Thanks to the great technology developed here of hydrofracking [man in audience whistles], we have seen the gas industry explode, and as a result, the cost of gas going down [sustained applause].

We have a huge economic advantage, and what are we doing with it? Trying to eliminate that advantage. The president of the United States is now going out and saying, “Oh, we’ve got to be conservative about this new technology, hydrofracking.” New technology? Last I saw there were about 800,000 wells drilled in this country using this technology [applause and several shouts of "Yeah"].

But since the environmentalists have now been outed with the politicization of the science of this “man-made global warming” schtick [loud applause, partial standing ovation]… They’ve gotta find a new fundraising tool.

Santorum used religious language even to distinguish himself from environmentalists.

They don’t believe that creation is here to serve man, they believe man is here to serve creation. And so as a result, we have a president of the United States who sides with them on everything.

When he said that environmentalists had been “outed,” he may have been referring to a 2009 controversy that was nicknamed “climategate”: the hacking of e-mails among four researchers who worked for the Climate Research Institute at the University of East Anglia. The American Meteorological Society responded to those who suggested that the content of the e-mails revealed a widespread conspiracy among climate scientists.

AMS Headquarters has received several inquiries asking if the material made public following the hacking of e-mails and other files from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia has any impact on the AMS Statement on Climate Change, which was approved by the AMS Council in 2007 and represents the official position of the Society.

The AMS Statement on Climate Change [which states that current warming trends are anthropogenic] continues to represent the position of the AMS.  It was developed following a rigorous procedure that included drafting and review by experts in the field, comments by the membership, and careful review by the AMS Council prior to approval as a statement of the Society.  The statement is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature.

“Skeptics” like Santorum’s former colleague, Sen. Jim Inhoffe (R-OK), nonetheless treated the e-mails as proof that no scientific consensus exists on climate change.

Before moving on to the obligatory bashing of his Republican rivals, Santorum attempted to establish himself as a man who believes that the problems in this country need to be solved from “the bottom up,” as opposed to someone like Obama who believes they should be solved from “the top down.” The audience rewarded him with a long standing ovation. Unlike me, they apparently knew exactly what he meant by that.

As proof of the extent to which he had won them over, the crowd laughed and cheered at his banal jokes about Mitt Romney‘s healthcare plan and Newt Gingrich‘s ad with Nancy Pelosi. He argued that since he is a man of deep and consistent conviction, he would “create a clear contrast Barack Obama.”

At that point, he moved on to the questions by pre-approved ORU students. The first was from Jonathan Townsend, the president of the College Democrats. Santorum joked to him that leading the College Democrats at ORU must feel like being the chairman of the College Republicans at Penn State, as he was in the early 80s. Townsend asked him to reconcile his opposition to the Affordable Care Act with his Catholic faith.

Here’s the way I approach things as a public official. I believe that you have an obligation to approach every issue in public life from the standpoint, as I do, from the standpoint of both faith and reason. My conscience was formed as a result of my life experience, was primarily through faith, and through the moral values that I was taught, of the teachings within the Bible and the church. And so, yes, I bring that to the table. That’s who I am. When I look at what’s right and wrong, they’re right out of what the Bible teaches are right and wrong [applause]. But, I have an obligation, not just to look at things that way, but also to bring reason.

I always say that if your faith is true and your reason is right, you’ll end up at the same place. Why? Well because God created us, created the universe, created reason. And, of course, why would God create something where your faith would bring you one place and your reason would bring you another if your faith is true? Right? [Scattered applause.]

I also believe as a public official that you have a right to speak to people of faith and no faith. You have to present a reason why you want to advance a certain public policy. Not just because, “that’s what my faith teaches me and that’s why I believe it.” That’s fine, but from the standpoint of public policy, it’s insufficient, because you need to appeal to people who may not share your faith.

And so, that’s why I look at the Affordable Care Act, and say, both from the standpoint of faith — do I believe that people have the right to purchase healthcare? Yes. Do I believe it is right that the government should impose and control? No. So it’s one thing to say that people should have the opportunity, should have access to care. It’s another to say that the government should be the implementer of that [applause]. And reason tells me that government is the least effective tool to make that the best possible care [standing ovation].

The next questioner, who introduced himself only as Micah, asked him to explain the difference between his foreign policy views and Ron Paul’s, which provoked knowing laughter among the crowd. I hope he did not mean this as challenging question — because if so, he failed. Santorum did not mention Paul while bashing Romney and Gingrich — probably because Paul is consistent on fiscal issues. And there are few supporters of Paul who could be swayed to Santorum’s side. But Micah gave Santorum and opportunity to avoid the appearance of ignoring an opponent, while drawing a real distinction between himself and the congressman.

The briefest way is, I believe in peace through strength, he believes… [Applause.] Well, maybe I’ll just say he doesn’t.

I believe that America is a source of stability in the world. The greatest benefactor of that is the United States and us. If we, in fact, do as Congressman Paul has suggested, which is to isolate ourselves, to withdraw from the world- I think we’ve seen that there are forces in the world who would replace us, who would not have our best interests in mind [applause.]

…

People have asked me, “would you vote for Congressman Paul, given his national security positions?” The answer is yes, because I believe after this election, if Barack Obama is re-elected, his foreign policy would be a Ron Paul foreign policy. I think he would become much more radical in his cuts to the military and bringing people home, and disengaging from the world and allowing the world to go to seed. And let me assure you — it will go to seed. And the virulence, that will be rampant, like a bacteria that keeps growing, will end up on our door [applause]. And we will not be able to have the ability to stop it.

He had, by this point, made many untrue statements. But his claim that a second term President Obama would have the same foreign policy as a first term President Paul was his most dishonest. He simply can not believe that to be the truth.

Ron Paul said that the assassination of Osama bin Laden was “absolutely unnecessary,” and that he would not have ordered it; that the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki was an “impeachable offense;” that the drone campaign in Pakistan, which Obama expanded after taking office, “makes more enemies” (and I agree with him on that one). Santorum employed a transparent scare tactic by claiming Obama, due to a lack of political accountability as a second term president, would suddenly change his entire approach to national security.

The next questioner was Luke, an international relations major, and the president of the Model UN Club. His was the best question of the night by far.

Luke: It says on your website that you want to re-brand “The War on Terror” to be “The War on Radical Islam” [applause.] Do you see radical Islam as the prime example of Islam at large? And, if you were the commander-in-chief, how would your War on Terror, or War on Radical Islam change from the current administration?

Santorum: Thank you. Great question. The reason I saw we have to re-brand the war, is because we need to be accurate as to who we’re fighting [applause.] Are we fighting all terrorists? And the answer to that is clearly no. There are terrorists in other parts of the world that we are not engaged in, and have no interest from national security point of view from engaging in.

The other issue is, is this a war on terrorism? Well what is terrorism? Terrorism is a military tactic. Can you be at war against a military tactic? … You go to war against what we’ve always gone to war against. You go to war against a virulent ideology that seeks to harm and destroy America [applause].

His point that you don’t fight a tactic is well-put, but I was disturbed the casual assumption that we are in an ongoing war that won’t end until this “virulent ideology” is eradicated. Judging by their reaction, the crowd made it along with him. If we’re in the business of re-branding, why not think of the struggle with “radical Islam” as an ongoing intelligence operation?

It’s especially unsettling when one considers the breadth of his definition of “radical Islam,” as revealed in his earlier comments about Egypt. Considering those statements, it’s hard to know what to make of his clarification of what America’s relationship with Islam should be.

Does that mean we’re at war with Islam? Of course not. But we’re at war with an element of Islam, that, frankly is at war Islam, and with most Muslims [applause]. The people who are going to be most disadvantaged, who are going to be most affected, as we see in Iran — most Iranians are not radical Islamists. In fact, most Iranians love America. And they’ve loved America for a long time. Why? Because we had the courage to go out and call their theocracy what it was: evil, and a corruption, and that we were on their side. Yet they are being oppressed everyday by these radicals. No, we’re not at war with Islam. But we are at war with the radical elements and we need to say to the people of Islam, the Islamic people, that they need to join the fight [applause] against the radical elements. And we are ready to help you in that regard.

This is a nice idea, of course, but I’m not sure how he’s capable of communicating his support and good intentions to “the people of Islam” if he supports people rulers like Hosni Mubarak. His real message seems to be: “we support you as long as you don’t oppose our allies.”

The fourth and final questioner, a young woman who did not introduce herself, asked him how he would respond in a general election to attacks on his abortion and homosexuality stances.

Well, it’s very interesting, because the other candidates in this race have the same position I have on these issues, at least that’s what they say. Right now, they have the same position I have on these issues. And so, whoever the Republican candidate is, we have these radical positions that marriage should be between a man and a woman [applause]. How radical is that?

He brought up the recent decision by the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down California’s 2008 Proposition 8, which added a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in the state. He claimed that the court ruled that “there was no rational basis for anyone to believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.” What they actually ruled was that Prop 8 specifically violates the 14^th Amendment, in that it does not conform to the standard that there be “a legitimate reason for a passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently.” The decision does not even establish the right of same-sex couples to marry. Opponents of marriage equality are right to worry that the trend is favoring the rights of gay and lesbian couples, but it’s a bit hysterical to treat each ruling that is unfavorable to them as a rebuke on their mental faculties.

Santorum that any Republican candidate will be attacked for his views on abortion and homosexuality, but that his strong convictions and willingness to talk about the issues set him apart. Americans, he said to loud applause, “want to believe that the president believes what he believes.”

In his closing remarks, after talking about the risks taken by the Founding Fathers and the American military, challenged the crowd to put their “honor on the line.”

You are stewards of a great inheritance. You have been honored by your ancestors, the people from Tulsa, the people from Oklahoma. The people from this country have given you the honor of being an American [applause]. And it is your obligation to be great stewards, to pass on to the next generation an America that is at least as great, as free, as prosperous and safe as the country you inherited. That’s what this is about, and I hope you take that challenge and do your duty. Thank you and God bless.

Read: don’t disrespect your ancestors and the troops casting a cynical vote for Romney or Gingrich. The final standing ovation was long and enthusiastic, and the chant “We want Rick” gained some momentum.

As I made my way out of the arena, I looked around and saw a lot of smiling, enthused people. I don’t know if they will all vote for Santorum on March 6^th, but I do know that they really liked what they heard.

…

I realize now that I’ve been exposed to Rick Santorum’s ideas almost exclusively through other liberals. The first I heard of him was when I read about Dan Savage‘s notorious Google-bomb of his surname. After he lost his Senate re-election campaign in 2006, I occasionally saw a left-leaning blogger complain about something he wrote on Townhall.com or said on Fox News. Even since his presidential campaign launched him back into the spotlight, I came across his statements largely through The Daily Show, ThinkProgress, and liberals on Twitter.

The experience of hearing his ideas unmediated, delivered to a sympathetic audience, was revelatory. The people I sat with on Thursday were not freaks. They were not on the fringes of society. Santorum’s crowd is indistinguishable from the people I see and interact with every day as they politely go about their business in the city of Tulsa.

I suppose I always knew that, but to see it in practice was terrifying.

…

I have been very, very slowly coming out of the atheist closet. It literally took me years to be honest with myself and even longer to actually say the words out loud to another person: “I don’t think I believe in God anymore.”

From there, though, it slowly began to trickle out. At first I told only my close friends, only one of whom was still a Christian herself. She cried for me. And then, after the worst emotional and intellectual torture of my life thus far, I told my family.

I knew the struggle that was ahead of me as, one by one, I told the people I loved that I was an atheist. For a Christian, the battle for a soul never ends. There will never be peace for any of these people. It will always hang over them. They will always pray for me. They will want to discuss and debate with me, never with an interest in dialogue and understanding, but with an interest in converting me. It isn’t a pleasant fate to accept, but the imperative of Christianity (and most religions) is to convert others. Despite that reality, I made the decision that I couldn’t live a lie any longer.

In those months before I came out as an atheist, I literally scoured the internet for stories, blogs, support, anything to make me feel like I wasn’t completely alone. I was raised in a very small conservative Lutheran tradition and no matter how hard I searched, I couldn’t seem to find anyone else who had been a part of this faith and left it. I still went to church every Sunday — in fact, I was the organist. And I spent every service glancing at the pews around me and thinking, Does everyone here really believe this? Am I the only one who doesn’t?

I came out to my family six months ago now, but still haven’t been open about my atheism. I don’t talk about it with anyone I don’t know well. There are a lot of old friends and extended family who, until now, had no idea. And this week I went public with some writing of mine that says in no uncertain terms that I don’t believe in God.

So that’s it, it’s out there. I would be lying if I said that I don’t have a knot in my stomach at the thought. I still live in fear of earning the hatred of people I love. I have seen that venomous “Christian love” pointed at the “baby killers” and the “heathen liberals.” I know all too well what might be in store for me.

In the midst of all this, there has been one thought driving me: I don’t want anyone else to feel alone. In a world full of all shapes and sizes, every belief and opinion, I firmly believe that we can at the very least band together in our humanness. After all, at the end of the day we’re all just people.

I started out writing today about the recent birth control debates in the news, but somehow lost track of that thread and wound up here. I’m here with my simple belief that no person should ever be alone.

Maybe it’s a shot in the dark. But maybe there’s another twenty-something Midwestern former conservative Lutheran ex-homeschooler out there. Maybe they could never quite believe it either. Maybe late at night they’re doing internet searches to find someone else who has gone through the same thing. And maybe they will find this.

For anyone who has been hesitant to be open about their atheism, let me offer you my plea. There is someone else out there who is struggling with the very thing you are. The only way we can support one another as human beings is if we come clean about who we really are and what we really think. Believe me, I know very well the consequences. Be open and honest anyway, not for the sake of debate or conflict, but for the sake of human compassion.

Can you imagine what would happen if some of these qualifiers were applied to Christians?

Ms. Roberts, who claims she’s a Christian, said that the city needs to invest more money in repairing potholes near Main St.

There would [be] considerable outrage, and for good reason. But that isn’t going to happen because we do not see these qualifiers applied to Christians. We’re generally content to take someone at their word that they are a Christian. We let them decide how to identify and label themselves.

Vjack adds that this is an example of Christian privilege at work. It’s to the point that most people probably don’t even notice it; clearly, reporters don’t seem to care. But one way to fix it is by raising awareness that it occurs so that you can call it out when you see it.

Here’s my schedule for the Spring. A lot of these events are still tentative (I’ll offer updates as soon as possible), but if you’re in the area, please consider dropping by!

(via DarkMatter2525)

Back in 2007, Ms. Walden’s employer, C0mputer Sciences Corporation, (CSC) held a contract with the CDC under which it provided counseling services to CDC employees. The issue arose when a CDC employee who was in a long-term same-sex relationship came to Ms. Walden for counseling. During the intake session, the employee (referred to as “Jane Doe” in the opinion) told Ms. Walden about serious and emotionally disturbing issues in her relationship. In response, Ms. Walden told her that her “personal values” prevented her from effectively counseling Ms. Doe, and provided a referral. During that intake session, Ms. Walden never mentioned the source of those personal values, her Christian faith.

Ms. Doe then filed a complaint to Ms. Walden’s superiors, saying that she felt “judged and condemned” by what Ms. Walden had said.  Her immediate supervisor did not take issue with the referral itself. (And neither do I — I’d rather not have LGBT people in a patient/counselor relationship with someone like that).

The program supervisor, Doug Shelton, discussed the incident with Ms. Walden and told her that the implicit judgment in telling a patient that her “personal values” prevented her from counseling the patient was not acceptable.

Ms. Walden rejected suggestions that she give potential clients who are in same-sex relationships some other reason for her referral. At the trial court level, she insisted that

it seemed unfair that [Ms. Doe] was able to talk aboutbeing gay and lesbian, and yet I couldn’t freely talk about me and my religious beliefs, or being Christian . . . . To me, it’s about honesty.  If she can be honest – I mean, I should be honest about why I’m transferring her.

The court held that

undisputed facts inthe record show that Dr. Chosewood and Ms. Zerbe asked for Ms. Walden’s removal from the contract because of how she handled Ms. Doe’s referral and because they believed Ms. Walden would not alter her behavior in similar circumstances in the future, not because of her religious views or her need to refer clients for religious reasons.

Her superiors did not burden her religious exercise by instructing her not to tell patients that she disapproved of their sexuality. Ms. Walden never claimed that her religious beliefs required her to be honest with her patients about her values. (Which is ironic, since “don’t lie” is actually in there). Her sincere religious belief that she would be condoning same-sex relationships by counseling people who were involved in them was not burdened.

It appears that absolutely no one told her she had to counsel people in same-sex relationships, nor does it appear that she was penalized in any way for deciding to refer those patients to another counselor. I would give my opinion here about why it’s so reprehensible for a counselor to express judgment like that when someone comes to her in need, but Dr. Casey Chosewood, CDC’s Project Officer for Occupational Health and Preventive Services, says it beautifully:

There again, I feel like that statement has some — has some bias in it, it has some judgmental tone in it.  There are many people who believe that homosexuality is like eye color or color of skin, you know.  There’s good science that supports that, as well.  I would not be happy with her saying something like, you know, “My personal belief doesn’t allow me to see someone of your color.”  To me, that’s — it’s just not appropriate in that very vulnerable setting when patients are coming to you maybe at their neediest time. So I feel like a referral, perfectly fine.  And — but to share, to give any, really, sort of expression of judgment or of displeasure with someone else’s situation or choices or life, to me, is not — it does not further the therapeutic relationship in any way.

Because the court concluded that Ms. Walden was laid off (and given instructions how to get another job within the agency) for reasons separate from her free exercise rights, it dismissed her claim. Her attorneys are considering appealing the U.S. Supreme Court, saying “[a] counselor who is a Christian shouldn’t lose her job for upholding the highest professional standards.”

For a fact-selective recounting of the events that is heavy on martyrdom, but light on law, check out this video presentation by Family Research Council:

In spite of the fact that the court viewed all the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Walden, it still dismissed her free exercise claims. She also made a claim against CSC.

Under the contract it held with the CDC to provide counseling services to the CDC employees, CSC was required to discharge an employee at the request of the CDC. It did as it was contractually obligated to do when it laid her off. In doing so, the court held that it did not substantially burden Ms. Walden’s sincerely held religious beliefs.

The court further held that CSC didn’t violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it provided her with a reasonable accommodation when it offered to allow her to give a different reason for referral. And then again when it encouraged her to find alternate employment with the company. If she had done this within one year, she would even have kept her seniority.

Interestingly, the court relied on a very similar case, Bruff v. North Mississippi Health Services.

There, the court held that

the defendant hospital fulfilled its obligation to accommodate the plaintiff counselor’s religiously-based refusal toprovide same-sex relationship counseling when it gave her thirty days to find another position at the hospital and provided her with the assistance of its in-house employment counselor.

The rulings seem pretty reasonable to me. If the clients aren’t harmed by being referred out to another counselor, then everyone can be happy. Counselors don’t have to violate their religious beliefs that they can’t counsel LGBT people, and LGBT get a counselor that really has their best interests in mind. It’s entirely appropriate for a federal employer to terminate a counselor that it believes will use her position to pass judgment on people whose sexuality she disapproves of. I’m glad to see the courts standing up for that principle, especially when it’s founded in so much legal precedent.