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!)

“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.

Jacob Kramer of the National Atheist Party was at a Town Hall meeting for Duckworth Wednesday night and asked her how she would represent her atheist constituents should she be elected:

Without pandering to him, I thought she gave a very respectable answer. It’s exactly what we need in regards to contraception (“Contraception is part of a woman’s basic health care”) and she didn’t even seem to flinch at the word “atheist” — something that can’t be said about other candidates.

I quoted Chelsea Link before, but I’ll do it again here (emphasis hers):

These are the types of conversations we need to be having with all our elected officials, because these are the conversations that will actually get us somewhere. If all the NAP did was record and publicize five-minute discussions like this one with every congressperson, they would immediately advance the public discourse on religion and government far more than any other party has in years.

Hats off to Jacob and the NAP folks for putting candidates on the spot like this. Please keep it going. We deserve to know how candidates would vote on our issues and whether they have our best interests at heart.

One of the chapters from the book discusses the prospect of an atheist getting into the Oval Office and Paul was kind enough to let me reprint it here (I’ve omitted all the footnotes below, but I assure you they are there):

The 2000 film The Contender featured as its protagonist an avowed atheist senator, selected to fill a vacant vice-presidency. The contender in question was eventually confirmed, but even the character’s portrayer, Joan Allen, found the prospect unrealistic. “That’s where the film takes latitude,” she has said. “It’s idealistic, I knew it was a very gutsy thing for my character to say. But I don’t think Americans could tolerate an atheist in that office.”

Allen’s political analysis is right on. As the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg wrote in 2000:

Forty years [after John F. Kennedy was elected president] religious prejudice, which never carried quite the sting of racism, has never been weaker. Only nonbelievers are left out of the atmosphere of ecumenical warmth: it is inconceivable that a professed atheist or agnostic could be elected President today, and even an unchurched Deist like Jefferson wouldn’t stand a chance.

Had Kennedy been an atheist, he would have never been given a chance to tell the country what it ought and ought not ask of its country. Gallup polls leading up to the 1960 presidential campaign showed heavy resistance to a hypothetical atheist candidate, with outright refusals to vote for such a person never dipping below 74 percent. Not until the turn of the millennium did polls begin to show that a majority of Americans would at least refrain from ruling out voting for a well-qualified atheist candidate for president. In 2000, a Zogby poll showed that figure to be at 59 percent, dipping seven years later to 51 percent. In the 2007 survey, no group fared more poorly on the presidential level than atheists. 39 percent declared that atheism would rule out the possibility of their vote, while gays, Mormons, and Arab-Americans all outperformed atheists.

Different surveys from the same period can yield very different results on the question of the acceptance of an atheist presidential candidate. While some polls did show the tide turning in the 2000s in the atheists’ favor, a Princeton survey in 2006 showed the percentage of Americans who would vote for an atheist candidate mired at 33.

In 2006, a Gallup poll showed that a meager 14 percent of Americans thought their fellow citizens were “ready” for an atheist president. Democrats were the most pessimistic for nonbelievers’ chances, with only 8 percent thinking the country prepared, as compared to 14 percent of Republicans and 21 percent of independents. This is mirrored in a 2007 Fox News poll that had the number at 15 percent confidence in the prospect. One must take into thorough consideration, however, what is meant when a poll asks whether the respondent feels America is “ready” for one kind of candidate or another. Certainly, the question can be heard as to ask the respondent what they think of the current cultural climate, but it can also be filtered by the biases of the respondent or the prejudices of their immediate surroundings. To what the respondent thinks they are responding can make a great deal of difference, and may not reflect the reality of the public’s attitudes as a whole.

In the face of these daunting numbers, Christopher Hitchens, characteristically, scoffs. “How do they know they wouldn’t [vote for an atheist]?” he asks, “They haven’t had an offer from a decent atheist yet…if Republicans had been asked in the seventies, ‘would they vote for a divorced ex-movie actor for president,’ they probably would have said ‘no.’”

John C. Green of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life knows that an atheist would have great trouble reaching national elective office, but offers a remedy: “A good way to change perceptions is to have effective atheist candidates and officeholders.” In other words, some atheists will have to throw their hats in the ring to begin making gains for future office seekers. Of course, Pete Stark is the beginning of realizing this prescription, but there is little else on the horizon.

But if we suppose the polls look harsher for atheists than is actually the case, what would happen if a plausible atheist candidate took a run for the White House? Fearing for the prospects this candidate, atheist blogger Brent Rasmussen has written in fervent opposition, believing that the current political climate allows only for a major backlash against atheists should such a candidate run. “I believe that a candidate who made an issue of their atheism would become a laughingstock gimmick,” he has written. Rasmussen thinks the only chance for an atheist candidate is for a series of closeted atheist politicians to declare themselves to the point that the concept becomes dull and insignificant. But for now, he insists that someone waiting for an atheist to throw his hat into the ring is “dreaming,” saying, “It’ll never happen in our lifetime. In fact, if the country swings back towards the conservative end of the spectrum again in a few years…I wouldn’t be surprised if atheists were rounded up and placed into detention camps — just for being atheists.”

If an atheist were to fight his or her way to the general election, that candidate would almost certainly be a Democrat. Those describing themselves as liberal were far more likely to support an atheist candidate for president, according to a February 2007 Gallup poll. 67 percent of liberals showed a willingness to support an atheist candidate, versus 48 percent of moderates and only 27 percent of conservatives. (Blogger Robert Ellman, however, imagines an atheist presidential prospect rising from the Republican ranks, musing, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if an attractive atheist candidate with a photogenic family took on the GOP’s radical Christians? I suspect many secular minded civil libertarians would be both relieved and appreciative.”)

If there is to be any plausibility to such a run, national political figures who are not atheists themselves (and none of them seem to be) will have to do some convincing on nonbelievers’ behalf. Indeed, very few of any import since George H.W. Bush have gone so far as to utterly dismiss atheists as potential commanders-in-chief. Al Gore was asked in 2000 whether it would bother him if a non-believer ascended to the presidency, to which he responded:

No, it would not. I think that it would depend on who the person was, of course. But do I believe that someone can have an understanding of our Constitution [and] a true spirit of tolerance without affirming a particular and specialized belief in God? Yes, I do. I think that is incumbent upon anyone who affirms a respect for tolerance.

Such a candidate would face their first hurdle vying for the nomination of their party, and for argument’s sake we will assume the party to be the Democrats. As we have seen, the nonreligious are most plentiful in the West, and that may well be where our atheist Democrat makes his or her stand, gathering up delegates in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. In order to make it out West, though, the atheist candidate would need to prove themselves in the first slate of contests. The Iowa caucuses may be trouble for such a candidate, but the first actual primary may hold more hope. New Hampshirites were given the chance to expound on their attitudes concerning politics and irreligion as their state was readying to be invaded by the 2008 primary season, and emblematic of the Granite State’s penchant for independence, 61 percent chose, in a hypothetical match-up, the candidate who was an atheist that shared their political views, versus only 21 percent who would opt for the candidate of their same religion, but did not agree with them on the issues. If New Hampshire is a bellwether, as it often is, the atheist candidate could find the potential for an early victory, or at least a respectable showing, here.

Still, the prospect for a presidential Bright looks, well, dim in the current political climate. Short of a major cultural change toward tolerance of the irreligious, such a candidate would likely need to benefit from a disaffected party that is refraining from turning out for primary elections, leaving many contests to the energized secularists who finally have one of their own on the ballot. Maybe, just maybe, the party of Jefferson might then nominate the personification of the wall of separation.

The general election would be an even steeper hill to climb, of course. The GOP would likely need to have nominated someone as fervently religious as the Democratic candidate was nonreligious, someone so zealously right wing as to turn off the moderate center of the electorate. Even that seems less than plausible, as a Pew survey in 2007 revealed that 69 percent of Americans felt that a president should have “strong religious beliefs,” while only 27 percent disagreed. As Kenneth Woodard of Newsweek once advised, “If you want to be president of all the people, invoke a generic deity everyone can salute.”

Of course, Michael Medved rejects the idea of an atheist president out of hand, writing in a column that there would be no way to bridge the spiritual gap between the president and his religious constituency, given that belief “drives the life and work” of the vast majority of Americans, and asserts that a president who rejects such a fundamental belief held by so many will be seen as condescending, no matter his or her intentions. There is certainly some truth to this claim, especially at a time in American politics when condescension is seen as the most mortal of sins (as Barack Obama has learned following comments that “bitter” religious Americans “cling” to their faith due to difficult and unsure times).

America may need a generation or two before such an atheistic ascension could truly take place, and it would almost certainly have to be an America in which Muslims and homosexuals could be considered to have respectable chances for the same (we have established now that Jews, African Americans, women, and Mormons are no longer relegated to the back bench, even if they have not yet sat in the Oval Office).

The work would have to start now, of course. Atheist politicos would need to begin nurturing and training candidates for offices at all levels, and be prepared to lose many, many elections, if only to begin to wear down Americans’ resistance, and make the idea of atheist candidates commonplace. They will have to make common cause with organizations and interests in areas unrelated to faith or lack thereof. They will have to prove to religious voters, at least liberally religious voters, that they pose no threat, and will be a friend.

Those candidates will have to be charismatic, eloquent, and approachable, and spotlessly moral. They must tap enthusiasm within Americans for things that are not limited to the supernatural, but tied to the best of what humans can do right now, right here on Earth, both for themselves and for the many generations they will leave behind. Indeed, atheists will need their own Great Communicator, less reactionary than the policers like Michael Newdow, and less confrontational than instigators like Sam Harris.

If so, perhaps Pete Stark is right about Ron Reagan Jr. What better name to ease the concerns of Americans who wish to see a new morning in America? Atheist Americans will not have faith in this possibility, but they might have hope.

Is there really any hope for atheists in the political arena? What do we have to do to make a secular America a reality? What would a victory even look like? Those are the kinds of questions Paul addresses in Under the Stained Glass Ceiling and the book is now available on Amazon.

The motto is “Opus Dei Cum Pecunia Alienum Efficemus,” Latin for “Doing God’s Work with Other People’s Money.”

Except they’re not doing “God’s work.” I’ll be honest; I read the description of what the RCO does and it still doesn’t make much sense to me, but it’s pretty evident God is nowhere to be found in that office. So there’s no reason for the patch to say that.

The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers pointed that out to Air Force officials and — surprisingly — they changed the logo!

Here’s the new patch:

In Latin, it reads “Miraculi Cum Pecunia Alienum Efficemus.” In English: “Doing Miracles with Other People’s Money.”

It’s not really any better. The RCO isn’t performing miracles any more than it’s doing God’s work — but if you see the word as a metaphor, I suppose it’s a small step up.

In any case, it’s probably a net positive since Republican Congressperson Randy Forbes is irate:

‘It is most egregious,’ Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes told Fox News. ‘The Air Force is taking the tone that you can’t even use the word “God”.’

‘(It is a) bridge too far in terms of the rights of men and women who serve in our services and their ability to express their faith.’

Right. Because we all know how hard Christians have it in this country when they want to express their faith…

Forbes sent a letter (PDF) to Air Force officials, co-signed by 35 other members of Congress, asking them to reverse their decision. If the officials are interested in doing the right thing, they’ll toss that letter right in the trash where it belongs.

No one is taking away any rights from religious military personnel. They’re simply removing an unnecessary reference to God in a logo that’s meant to be a symbol for everyone in the Air Force, not just the religious people.

However, any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child.

Sen. Constance Johnson, D-Oklahoma City, said that while it takes two people to create life, Crain’s measure focuses only on half of that equation.

My amendment seeks to draw attention to the absurdity, duplicity and lack of balance inherent in the policies of this state in regard to women. Oklahoma already incarcerates more women than any other place in the world. Under the latest provisions, a woman in Oklahoma may now face additional criminal charges and potential incarceration for biological functions that produce or, in some cases, destroy eggs or embryos, such as a miscarriage. In vitro fertilization, involving the fertilization outside the womb for implantation into the womb, would also potentially represent a violation of the proposed Personhood statute.

Finally, this amendment seeks to draw humorous attention to the hypocrisy and inconsistency of this proposal – from the Republican perspective of down-sized government and less government intrusion into people’s private affairs.

So one local resident filed a lawsuit against the city with the help of the ACLU.

The city tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, but Judge Michael F. Urbanski has denied that dismissal. The case has merit, he says.

“Every time the plaintiff attends a board meeting and comes in direct contact with an overtly Christian prayer, she experiences a recurring First Amendment injury,” Urbanski wrote in his opinion.

The injunction is not permanent, but it does order the board to stop praying until the case is settled.

“This is an important first step,” said Kent Willis, the executive director of ACLU of Virginia. “With a very strong opinion from the judge indicating that we are legally on the right track.”

There’s just one caveat to the whole thing…

If “Jane Doe” wants to proceed with the lawsuit, she has to give up her anonymity:

According to Willis, the ACLU’s next steps are to speak with the plaintiff about how to proceed. They requested she remain anonymous because of the hostile environment over the issue and because she feared for her safety if her identity were released. “Jane Doe” is a county resident who regularly attends board meetings, Willis said.

“Given the degree of anger this lawsuit has engendered in Pittsylvania County, we are disappointed that the judge did not grant request for anonymity,” said ACLU of Virginia legal director Rebecca Glenberg in a news release. “We are consulting with our client about how to best proceed.”

The ACLU can appeal the judge’s decision denying anonymity, but if “Jane Doe” does not appeal or disclose her identity, there is no plaintiff and no case, according to Willis.

I’m sure there’s some legal reason for this — at least, I hope that’s why they’re forcing her to make herself known — but what an awful thing to make her do. In the wake of the Jessica Ahlquist ruling, we know just how tough it can be when you take on the religious establishment in a First Amendment case. By going public, Jane Doe would be opening herself up to potential harassment. She risks having her address made public by Christian bullies. And who knows if she has children in local schools who may face persecution of their own?

I don’t even know if she’s an atheist, but that doesn’t matter. Even if she’s a Christian, she’s trying to do the right thing and keep church and state separate. But God-Fearing Christians are never content with that. They love their public displays of faith and they feel justified going after anyone who wants to put a stop to it.

If Jane Doe makes herself known, though, I hope she knows that there are a lot of us out there who would watch out for her and come to her aid should anything happen. Certainly, there are many atheists in Virginia who would come to her side.

(Thanks to Tom for the link)

Mitt Romney’s religion, Mormonism, which is my former religion, having been a Mormon High Priest, like Mitt still is, is a far bigger issue than most people realize and understand. In our rush to avoid being accused of being bigoted, in America, we have a natural tendency to want to steer clear of this topic. I will be the first to agree that to be arbitrarily dismissive of a man’s candidacy for the office of President, or any office for that matter, on the basis of his religion is definitely bigoted. “Arbitrarily dismissive” is the key phrase here. In the case of Mormonism, we have a very unique situation. Questions about Mormonism for those fully informed of the very real issues are not in the least degree arbitrary. There are very real concerns that millions of former Mormons are very much aware of. This is not simply a question of subjective disagreements on points of faith that really can’t be proved or disproved anyway. In the case of the Mormon Church, I share the view with many others, including people far more scholarly and qualified in other ways than myself, that the Mormon religion is not only an insidious contemporary fraud, but has been demonstrated conclusively to be such by researchers who are alive today and competent to testify on the basis of evidence still available today. Accordingly, the questions that are most important and relevant to Mitt’s candidacy here, since he is a current High Priest of the Mormon Church, are not of religion, but very fair questions of ethics and judgment.

Sounds like a reasonable analysis of the situation. Romney doesn’t deserve to be excluded from running for the presidency based on his religious beliefs, but we deserve to know what aspects of Mormonism he adheres to because they help us understand his thought process and — let’s face it — his sanity.

So what does the Washington Post‘s Dana Milbank say about Park Romney?

Mitt Romney, [Park] claims, would be conflicted in office because “obedience to the leadership of the Mormon Church is part of the covenant of the temple ordinances to which Mitt Romney is absolutely a party.”

Were you to come across a man articulating such views on a street corner, you probably would give him a wide berth and look over your shoulder to make sure he wasn’t following you…

…

Every family has wacky relatives. The difference is, when you’re running for office and you become a famous name, your relatives’ surname becomes famous too — sometimes in unwelcome ways.

…

… the emergence of a “crazy cousin” might remind voters that Romney, a candidate who too often comes across as programmed, is just like the rest of us.

So, because someone dares to point out Mormon theology (regardless of whether or not Mitt Romney takes it seriously), he’s “wacky,” “crazy,” and accused of being “anti-Mormon” (in a bigoted way) rather than a critic of bad ideas and irrational thinking?

Park responds to the criticism here. (Admittedly, the layout of his website makes me think he’s kooky, anyway… but it’s not because of what he’s saying.)

Milbank seems to think if you critically examine religion, you’re being intolerant. He’s wrong.

People don’t understand Mormonism. That’s true. But right now, that’s only helping Mitt Romney. The moment people begin to learn what Mormon theology really consists of and how fucked up it really is, Mitt’s going to have a lot to answer to.

Side note: David Fitzgerald gave a great talk about Mormon theology at Skepticon 4 (start at the 1:00 mark):

(Thanks to Jamie for the link!)

That’s one of the seven videos selected by the Richard Dawkins Foundation as a finalist in their “Ten Point Vision of a Secular America” contest. Winner gets two plane tickets to the Reason Rally and an opportunity to meet Dawkins himself. You can vote for your favorite here!