HB 2625 expands the number of businesses who can deny access to contraception for their female employees.  Arizona is already among one of 20 states which allow some religious companies to get an exemption in covering contraception. This law would widen the number of employers that qualify to  any corporation that has articles of incorporation which explicitly state a religiously-motivated purpose, and whose religious beliefs are determined to ‘play a fundamental role in its function’.

Think that sounds a little bit less than separation of church and state? Take a look (PDF) at SB 1365:

Government shall not deny, revoke or suspend a person’s professional or occupational license, certificate or registration for any of the following and the following are not unprofessional conduct: declining to provide or participate in providing any service that violates the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs except performing the duties of a peace officer.

…

This section does not authorize any person to engage in conduct that violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

This means your doctor or psychiatrist can refuse to provide you care if they feel that doing so would violate their religious beliefs. That is unacceptable. When you take employment, when you interview for a job, you are agreeing to do that job. If you feel that dispensing or prescribing Plan B or birth control is immoral, do not get a job at a pharmacy. It’s as easy as that.

You can take a look the video of the House proceedings (click on the third segment in the index) prior to passage–but only if you’re prepared to be upset. The proposed Heinz Amendment to require professionals who decline to supply a reference to another provider failed. This is legislated protection for religious discrimination. Now it is law.

Last night, just after Governor Brewer signed the bills, I spoke with Seráh Blain, Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for Arizona, who has been lobbying hard against passage of SB 1365 and HB 2625, and she generously took some time to tell us how things are on the ground.

Tell me, in your own words, what makes these two bills so bad for the secular community and for the population of Arizona.

SB1365 is particularly harmful because it elevates the right to religious conviction over other kinds of convictions — and over basic human rights. This enables people to use religion as an excuse to discriminate against some of the most politically vulnerable people in our society.

HB 2625 is similar. It takes away an individual employee’s liberty to make decisions about what constitutes adequate, ethical reproductive healthcare for herself and her family — and it hands that right to her employer who can now make that decision for her based on the employer’s religious beliefs. It’s an assault on individual liberty and further jeopardizes the ability of women to make decisions about when and how she chooses to start or grow her family. This is particularly serious for poor women who are completely reliant upon employer-provided insurance and cannot afford to get contraception coverage elsewhere.

What has been the process of fighting these?

We’re very fortunate in Arizona to have enough support in the secular community to fund a nontheistic advocacy organization with a full-time Director and lobbyist — me! I have been at the State Capitol all legislative season talking to legislators about the importance of secularism, testifying in committee hearings, and working to stop anti-secular policy. We also send out Action Alerts to our constituents who have sent hundreds of emails and made hundreds of phone calls to our governor. We’ve collaborated with other organizations, including Planned Parenthood, ACLU, Unite Women, and people from progressive faith communities. And we’ve been building and growing local nontheistic communities throughout the state so that, moving forward, we can work with an organized, engaged constituency.

You said that of the 22 anti-secular bills you’ve lobbied against this legislative season, you believe this one is the most damaging. What have been features of other legislation you fought in the past year?

Most of the bills we’ve seen have been couched in terms of religious liberty — but they’re actually religious privilege bills. We’re seeing legislation that privileges the sectarian religious beliefs of the people in power and that elevates the right to religious expression over other kinds of rights. LGBT people, religious minorities, women, and nonbelievers are particularly vulnerable in our state.

There have been several reproductive health bills related to abortion, contraception, in vitro, gamete donation, etc., that represent a bias against particular medical procedures based on religious assumptions about human development and the value of genetic material rather than evidence. There have been bills that defund public, secular education and either divert tax dollars to private religious schools or directly fund religious schools and homeschool curricula.

We saw bills die in the legislature that religionists felt were an assault on their religious values—including a bill that would have protected teens from bullying and legislation that would have required comprehensive, fact-based sex education programs.

What, if anything, can citizens of Arizona do to prevent being denied medical care as a result of these laws?

This is going to be challenging, especially in rural religious communities. The state passed a bill this year that excludes Planned Parenthood and other clinics that provide abortion from being reimbursed by Medicaid for even the non-abortion-related services they provide — so women without contraception coverage through their employers are losing options for access. I’m also concerned that LGBT people in rural areas are going to find it difficult to get any kind of service from state-licensed professionals, including legal services, counseling service, even real estate services.

I’m not sure there are good solutions to this problem — which is part of the reason these bills are so awful.

Have you found a majority of opposition to these laws stems from the secular community?

There has been a lot of momentum in the secular community, but there has actually also been a lot of opposition to these laws from progressive people of faith — particularly on the “War Against Women” bills. I’m finding that these folks really see Secular Coalition for Arizona as an ally because we’re actually at the State Capitol doing the work necessary to effect change. A lot of anti-atheist prejudice has dissipated as the broader community sees us more and more as social justice activists.

I am going to continue to collaborate with progressive people of faith, speak to faith organizations about how secularism protects real religious liberty, and will be working hard to advance social justice and human well being. As religious people have begun to see that many of our core values overlap, they have shown an eagerness to work together.

What comes next in fighting this legislation?

We have an election coming up — and the best way to fight this legislation is to get legislators in office who will write these policies out of statute. We’re getting to work on voter registration; we sending out candidate questionnaires and voter guides related to secularism; I’ll be doing Town Halls around the state to talk to voters about secularism; and we’ll be working to mobilize the members of the thirteen organizations we represent throughout the state and grow some new communities as well. The solution is grassroots secularism, and we’ve got a ton of momentum behind that.

How can non-Arizonans help?

Send us some money! Seriously though, go to our website and sign up for Action Alerts. You can help us let our state government know that the nation is watching. And much of the anti-secular legislation that passes in Arizona is boiler-plate from national organizations promoting a Religious Right agenda, so staying up-to-date on our bills can help folks in other states prepare for what’s coming. I would also love to hear from activists in other states working on these issues so we can advise one another, share research, etc.

The thing I like to emphasize is that secularism is a social justice movement. Religion is too easily used in government as a tool to oppress politically vulnerable individuals; we’ve seen it again and again throughout history. The best way to protect human rights and advance human well being is to keep religion out of government.

You can reach Serah at serah[at]secularAZ[dot]org.

(Lori was also hilariously interviewed by Stephen Colbert in a “Better Know a Lobby” segment.)

With Edwina Rogers taking the helm of the organization, I asked Lori what the thought of the new appointment — especially in light of all the ensuing controversy — and this is what she told me:

I wish the new Executive Director success as she leads the Secular Coalition for America. It is important that the person speaking to members of Congress and their staffs has good skills for the Hill. This is more important than party affiliation. While I may find it difficult to imagine working for some of her previous employers, given their theocratic views on our issues, it is my understanding that Ms. Rogers specialized in health care and economic issues when she worked for them, not church/state separation or the treatment of nontheistic Americans. Hopefully, she will bring a strong voice for OUR issues. It is also important to recognize that it may take a few weeks for the new person to become fully versed on the current issues on the table. I recall that I learned much from our partners in allied coalitions during my first few weeks. Time will tell, but I’m always hopeful that our movement will succeed.

Lori added that she’s aware that there can be overlap between health care/economic issues and nontheistic issues, but hopefully, Rogers’ focus was not on things like “pushing public money to churches or denying access to prescriptions based on religious belief of pharmacists.”

Here’s a hypothetical: Regardless of what Obama said, what if it was Mitt Romney who had come out in support of marriage equality instead?

What if he figured out that most of the people voting for him are going to support him regardless? They’re not about to vote for Obama. What if Romney decided to make a play for the youth vote? What if he was the one who made news by saying he was in support of marriage equality — despite what others in his party want him to say — and he hoped states would follow in that direction? What if he said his marriage was strong and wonderful and he wanted all couples, both gay and straight, to experience that as well?

Implausibility aside, a Republican nominee for president voicing an opinion like that could arguably do more to get bigoted voters to think differently about gay marriage than anything Obama could do. (I mean, it’s not like they’re going to change their mind because of what he said.)

So, I’ve been reading the conversations about Edwina Rogers and listening as everyone goes out of their way to find reasons to discredit her. She recently gave money to Republicans like Rick Perry. She wasn’t a vocal atheist before now. She’s not realistic about what the GOP is like these days.

None of these things concern me very much.

I wasn’t part of the hiring conversations but it looks like the Secular Coalition for America made a strategic decision based on everyone who applied. They took on someone who had significant lobbying experience, knew how to manage a staff, and believed in our mission. The fact that she was a Republican was seen as an asset — a way to get through to the people least sympathetic to our cause — not a liability.

Everyone seems to be forgetting that Sean Faircloth, who is now working for the Richard Dawkins Foundation and has been an outspoken advocate for our issues, had virtually no knowledge about our movement until he read an article quoting SCA President Herb Silverman in the New York Times. He was surprised to find an organization that promoted his non-belief and he soon applied for the Executive Director position.

The article came out on April 29^th, 2009. The SCA publicized Sean’s hiring as Executive Director on June 3^th, 2009. In other words, it was about a month between discovering our movement existed and taking the reins of the SCA.

Did he know everything about our cause beforehand? No, but he self-identified as an atheist. He just never really did much with that label before his new job compelled him to make a big deal about it.

Is anyone doubting his sincerity and dedication to our cause now?

Edwina Rogers is only different in that she’s coming from a party that actively opposes our values. Still, she has said time and time again that she doesn’t align with the party on those fronts. If she’s a Republican, it’s for different reasons.

She also says she believes (“100%”) in our mission.

Now, we have to give her time to figure out what makes our movement tick. I know we want her to be well-versed in it already, but that’s not going to happen overnight.

People are threatening to stop donating to the SCA because of her — to that, I’d say, “Stop acting prematurely.”

Yesterday, when the SCA denounced Catholic CEO group Legatus for filing a lawsuit because they didn’t want their insurance plans to cover contraceptive care as the Department of Health and Human Services mandated, Rogers offered a statement that sure as hell sounded like it would come from “one of us”:

“Legatus is asking the government to place the religious beliefs of the employer over the individual religious beliefs of the employees, and they are doing it under a smoke screen of religious persecution,” said Edwina Rogers, Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America. “True religious freedom allows for individuals to make personal moral and health decisions for themselves.”

Doesn’t sound like a “typical” Republican to me.

If Rogers works out for the SCA, it could help us *considerably* in the long run. A lot of people are being way too myopic about her hiring. Give her time to learn her job and advocate for us well. If she can’t, there will be plenty of time to complain.

A couple of additional interesting links:

Ashley F. Miller writes the sample apology letter she wishes Rogers would send out:

My final big mistake is that I’ve been trying to focus exclusively on my positives without acknowledging my negatives and without engaging with them openly and honestly. This is a fault of being in politics, it makes you quite the bullshit artist. I should have known better in this community than to think I could dance around questions without being called on it. So let me say that you are right. You are right that I’ve worked for and support a party that disagrees, in majority but not in totality, with many of your goals. But I was working for causes that I cared very deeply about, and I will not apologize for doing that. And I will not abandon my party because other people have taken it in a direction I disagree with. It is better for all of us if we can bring the party back in line with the goals of the secular community and I really do think that is possible.

…

SCA Communications Director Lauren Youngblood believes we can and should try and reach out to the other side in a show of bipartisanship:

We do ourselves a disservice when we actively attempt to align ourselves with only one party. Of course, we may naturally gravitate toward one side or the other, but we must remember that most people are not single issue voters. That is to say that when they go into the voting booth, they are not voting solely on their beliefs on religion (or any one issue). They may be put off by the religious rhetoric of a particular candidate, but are more concerned about immigration policy, for instance, and vote for a religiously-affiliated candidate anyway.

It’s our job as a movement to make voters see the importance of voting based on secular issues. We should never give up on creating relationships and building coalitions where ever we can.

To be clear, the issue here is not about Rogers personality or intellect or even her prior involvement in the Republican party; it’s that the cumulative effect of all of those things has not been addressed in any reassuring way by Rogers. Personally, I wouldn’t be opposed to a leader who had different values from myself, past or present, so long as questions about those values were made clear and we had some initial, important common ground.

Troublingly, Rogers demonstrated a pretty stunning inability to communicate her motivations even for joining the Republican Party in the first place. Here’s the relevant portion of the interview (emphasis mine):

Greta Christina: The question that people are asking is, why support that party? And why put years of your life and work into supporting that party, rather than supporting a party that supports you on the issues?

Edwina Rogers: Well, I was a Democrat, because I was born and raised in Alabama. At one point, in the 80’s, when Reagan came through, the majority of Alabama switched and became Republicans because the idea of working hard, and getting ahead, and pulling yourself up by the bootstraps really resonated with people in Alabama. And I am a Republican. I’m a conservative Republican, and I definitely don’t have any plans to change parties, and I don’t think that the Secular Coalition for America would be as interested in me if I was another person who was closely affiliated with the Democratic Party. They’ve got that covered. They’ve got that covered very well. So the plan is not for me to try to go and… operate in a party that I have not been. The plan is for me to try to work with Republicans and also with Democrats, and build common ground.

Now the coalitions I’ve worked with in the past, they were bipartisan, and this one actually is bipartisan. And you know, that’s what the leadership thinks, that’s what the leadership wants, and they had no problem with the fact that I happen to be a Republican, and we’ve been over my personal position. But for people to think that there are people with in the Republican party that are the opposition and they have opinions that are different from my opinion and that that is somehow my fault. I totally disagree with that. Because I don’t think that it is. I think I’m just going to go out and do what it takes to win over any groups and as many decision makers as possible to the movement, and make them allies, and I’m not planning on sitting here and writing everybody up. I’m going to go and work hard and educate and persuade and have the best advocacy positions that we have hand have the best written materials and be tenacious and get our foot in the door and get a seat at the table and move beyond our traditional reach, is what I’m planning on doing.

Rogers can’t seem to understand the conflict between her personal political opinions and the goals of the secular movement, which Greta Christina attempted to clarify over and over again in the interview, nor can she even coherently explain her own dedication to the party beyond “Reagan was persuasive.” There are plenty of arguments, particularly economic arguments, that a person might make to justify belonging to a more conservative party despite supporting more progressive policies elsewhere, but I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking that the popularity one gets during a presidential campaign does not constitute a strong argument.

Furthermore, Rogers seems to believe, out of ignorance or design, that Republicans support secular values despite decades of actual policy that contradict her. A common thread throughout the interview was Rogers responding to questions by questioning and warning against “stereotyping,” though she had no evidence to support her claims beyond her “years of insider experience.”

Fundamentally, Ms. Rogers needs to understand that the population she is representing does not see her years of experience with and commitment to the Republican Party as an asset unless she has strong evidence for doing so. She demonstrated a clear lack of understanding about the evolution of conservative politics over the last thirty years, and, more troubling, that her own personal experience somehow trumps data and evidence (another common thread in the interview was the general setup of “well, I don’t know…but my experience is the opposite…” to answer questions).

Moreover, the bumbling answers and rhetorical circus in the interview demonstrated not only an individual quite separated from the priorities of the secular and atheist movement, but also someone who doesn’t care about reality.

Quite simply, I cannot trust someone who believes that the Republican Party is just as pro-choice as it is pro-life. Or just as pro-gay marriage as anti-gay marriage. Or just as concerned about separation of church and state as it is about injecting church into state. Democrat, Republican, or the Party of Polka Dotted Sock Enthusiasts — I don’t particularly care, so long as we both value policy made for and driven by objective reality-minded individuals.

Edwina Rogers has certainly not inspired that confidence in me. Nor am I confident in her ability to accurately represent me or other atheists when it comes to the issues we care about. Either I have a lot of surprises coming my way from the Secular Coalition for America, or they have made a colossal misstep. I’m cautiously pessimistic; I won’t write Ms. Rogers off completely, but if she wants to win over the godless crowd, she needs to drop her spade, quit shoveling, and familiarize herself with the people she is being paid to represent.

…

After Sean Faircloth left his post as Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America last September to begin working for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS), SCA leaders have been on the search for their next director.

Today, they’re announcing their selection. She’s a bold choice, sure to grab headlines, and she may just be the ideal person for the job.

Edwina Rogers

Edwina Rogers has spent twenty years working in Washington as a lawyer and lobbyist. She was seriously considered to be a cast member on Bravo’s “The Real Housewives of DC” (more on that in a bit). More recently, she was the Executive Director of the Patient Centered Primary Care Collaborative. Perhaps most importantly, she has more than just a foot in the door of Republican circles — not usually thought of as a welcome place for atheists:

From 2001-2002, Rogers served as an Economic Advisor for President George W. Bush at the White House, at the National Economic Council, where she focused on health and social security policy. She also worked on International Trade matters for President George H. W. Bush at the Department of Commerce from 1989 until 1991.

Rogers served as General Counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 1994. She worked for Senator Lott while he was Majority Leader in 1999 and she handled health policy for Senator Sessions in 2003 and 2004. She practiced law in the Washington office of Balch and Bingham from 1991 until 1994.

She’s also appeared on several news outlets, including both MSNBC and FOX News Channel (check out the clip below beginning at the 1:42 mark).

So can a “Republican strategist” — a person who worked closely with über-conservative senators Trent Lott and Jeff Sessions — properly lead an organization representing Secular Americans?

I was a little skeptical…

I also had a lot of questions for Rogers and, to her credit, she responded to all of them.

You have an extensive political resume… with the GOP. You worked for Senator Trent Lott when he was Majority Leader. You handled health policy for Senator Jeff Sessions. You were a General Counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 1994 (the year Newt Gingrich made headlines for his role in the Republican takeover of Congress). Put very bluntly, you’ve worked for the “other side” for decades.

Why should we trust you now to work for us after a career spent working for people who seem to be actively against us?

I think it’s a misconception that the majority of Republicans are lined up against the secular movement. As someone who has been an insider within the Republican Party, I’m certain it’s not the consensus of the majority of Republicans to have an [overt] influence of religion on our laws. Having said that, no one agrees with everyone they work with on every single issue. In these roles I never worked on anything having to do with issues of religion — I worked primarily on economic issues.

People are going to do a double-take when they hear a Republican strategist is now the leader of an organization working on behalf of atheists… what do you hope the public reaction will be?

I hope it will be a positive reaction and one that gets everyone thinking about the right direction for the secular movement. Often times, problems are arising from the conservative side and that’s one reason why it’s important to include both sides. The majority of the gubernatorial positions and state legislatures are controlled by Republicans. The Religious Right is a segment of the Republican Party — but it’s not a majority within the party and it certainly does not represent a majority of Americans. It’s a very active, vocal part of the Republican base, but it’s a minority.

I do think that for the vast majority of conservatives and Republicans, they are true believers of secularism — the majority of Republicans believe in the separation of church and state. Many of them are simply laissez faire about the issues, which gives us an opening to recruit them to the movement. Just within the last few months, talking to all my Republican conservative friends, the majority of them are in line with our thinking. They can be recruited, they just haven’t been active.

So, there is tremendous potential — in both parties, but especially with Republicans because there hasn’t been a major outreach to them in the past. There are a lot of leaders that would be interested in our big picture message. They may not support 100%, but even if they support 50%, that helps us when it comes to our efforts on Capitol Hill.

I don’t know if you’re an atheist — and I don’t even know if it really matters in your role as long as you can advocate for our cause — but what label do you use to describe your religious beliefs?

I am a nontheist and have always been a strong secularist and a firm believer in the separation of religion and government. I’m not a fan of labels though, because I feel like it creates unnecessary division within the movement. I agree with the mission of the Secular Coalition for America one hundred percent.

What prompted you to apply for the job of Executive Director of the SCA?

I was drawn to the position because of the opportunity to expand the secular movement. This is a segment of the population that is underrepresented and I think there’s a tremendous opportunity for expansion. I think I can make a big difference.

Can Republicans in Congress ever be receptive to our cause? Do you think your own background can help in that matter?

The answers are yes and yes. Last month I participated in SCA’s Lobby Day for Reason and was received very warmly by the offices of several high profile Republican U.S. Representatives. There have been times in my past as a lobbyist, where I was thrown out of politicians’ offices when they didn’t like my message — this wasn’t one of them. There is definitely an opening there, and we are going to work to make our issues known and widely accepted by those on both sides.

My Republican background will help open certain doors. The sky is really the limit. Good work has been done but it’s only a foundation, and now we’re going to build a skyscraper. On the top of my agenda for this year will be meeting with every U.S. House and Senate office, as well as the appropriate committees. We are going to educate them on the downside of allowing laws to be based on religion and faith and not reason and science.

Conservatives tend to believe there is room for religion in politics while liberals tend to want them separated. What do you think is the appropriate mix of church and state? (Should the President be hosting prayer breakfasts? Should the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships be expanded? Should invocations be given before city council meetings or Congressional sessions?)

We need to strive to have an absolute division between religion and government, but keep in mind that we need to be respectful and open to people of all faiths and none. No one — religious or non-religious — should be excluded from the conversation. But ultimately, the laws shouldn’t be based on a religious perspective.

On which issues do you think the SCA can get the most traction with political leaders?

I think in the near future, chances are good to make inroads on issues surrounding health and safety (things like stem cell research — because the upside is so tremendous), discrimination (especially in the military), fairness in tax policy, emphasizing a pro-science based education in public schools and tempering religious extremism — these are things the average American can really relate with.

Similarly, what can we reasonably expect the SCA to accomplish with a Congress that continues to move in a more conservative direction?

We can expect a more educated Congress on the core issues that matter to the secular movement. With a strong voice from the nontheist side, voting members in the future will be armed with important information that simply was not accessible in the past. The sad reality is that staff members don’t always have time to research both sides of an issue unless it’s sitting right in front of them. We have not always been there to make the opposition case. In the future, we will be that strong voice coming in and urging them to look at the repercussions and downsides of religiously based laws. I truly believe that once we do that, many members will think twice.

What do you believe the SCA has to do to become a more powerful force in politics?

We have a whole list of specific goals to be accomplished that will definitely produce measurable results with regard to our access and results with decision makers. We will do this in a number of ways, but largely through coalition building and messaging.

By the end of the year, we will have up and running coalitions in all 50 states. And we will unify those coalition members with a master secular calendar, a national weekly secular movement update call, and biweekly legislative and regulatory calls with featured government policy decision makers and speakers. We also have an aggressive plan to greatly expand the participation in the movement by increasing the number of member endorsing organizations and allied organizations.

Additionally, we will begin to establish relationships with all the legislative committees, Congressional and Senate offices, as well as the Executive branch officials at the appropriate departments.

Finally, we will begin hosting policy summits and continue our lobby days. Policy summits will feature legislative and regulatory officials. We will also begin producing persuasive policy issue and advocacy summaries, along with research papers that we can use on the Hill to advocate our positions.

Have you always supported the secular cause? If so, has that ever hurt you in your political career?

I have always supported the secular cause, and I do not feel it has ever hurt my political career at all. I have had disagreements with fundamentalists belonging to most of the world’s major religions, but I am still able to work with them. Even though I may disagree with them, it’s a respectful disagreement, so it hasn’t gotten in the way of anything I want to accomplish.

What was your experience like during law school at The Catholic University of America? With regards to church/state separation and health care, were you ever taught anything there you actively opposed?

The far majority of the law students there were not Catholic and the professors were well known experts in their respective fields. I really only had one troubling situation with one professor — a priest who taught Constitutional Law based on the Church’s interpretation of the Constitution.

You were almost cast on “The Real Housewives of DC” — and made a couple of memorable cameos during the one season the show aired. Now that the series is over, do you wish you had been cast?

The producers of the show courted me to be a full time cast member, but I declined for a variety of reasons, the first being that I did not have time for the rigorous taping schedule. Also, I don’t consider myself a “housewife” — I work! However, they asked me if I would be willing to attend a few of their events and I am always up for a good event!

There’s a video on YouTube of you wrapping gifts in sheets made of real dollar bills… I don’t have a question for that. I’d just love to hear your thoughts on it since it’s been a few years since all that happened. (I mean, you had to realize the PR ramifications…)

The clip on the Internet is a 30 second snippet of a much larger program (and a feature in the Washington Post) that focused on the “gift limit” that all gifts to government employees could not exceed. At the time, the limit on gifts to most government employees was around $20 and we were always looking for unique gifts for government speakers at conferences that represented the United States. Many of us in Washington lived this constant search for finding unique gifts, special to America that are very inexpensive. If you give a gift of a letter opener, or something else with a value of $15, wrapping it in American money makes it a little more unique and memorable, but still keeps it under the $20 limit. Ironically, the purpose of the program was just the opposite of what someone might think by watching that clip on YouTube. Of course, now gifts are no longer allowed to most government employees.

One of the issues the atheist community has struggled with, especially lately, has been getting more women involved in our movement. Do you think your role with the SCA can help change that?

Of course, I think me being female will help recruit women and I am going to make it a priority to get more women involved. I will be speaking at the Women in Secularism conference on the 19^th of this month.

There will inevitably a lot more publicity and stories about Rogers in the coming days, but I’m hopeful that her background gives us exactly what we need — a strong voice, coming from an unexpected place, that endorses the visibility and respectability of non-theistic viewpoints.

Earlier in the day I had perused the bookstore and had bypassed the gaudy bookcover a few times. The maxim rings true, as the contents of this book are superb. Attack of the Theocrats! addresses current issues, and I recommend it for atheists & moderately religious people.

The book opens with a forward from Richard Dawkins that gives a concise preview of what is to come. Don’t skip the preface; it contains a valuable image of Faircloth that helps the reader understand his passion for justice. Using his wealth of knowledge through a background of politics and law, Faircloth starts off strong with an extensive critical review of religious bias in American politics and the social arena. As he exposes a multitude of issues, they begin to fester inside of you. I would like to have seen more of the book dedicated to “What You Can Do,” than the brief section on p. 132, but this book is at least educating and creating a dialogue — especially around child related issues.

More than ten states allow federally funded, unlicensed religious child-care facilities. Depending on the state, this can mean that some of these religious child-care facilities are exempt from a broad range of health and safety laws. Others are offered fewer exemptions, but the real question is why would any exemption exist at all, particularly when the safety of children is at stake?

The focus later shifts to an intimate look at the Christian fundamentalists and Dominionists that are bent on reshaping the United States into a theocracy. Anyone strongly opposed to gay equality and those who consider zygotes sacred will have a challenging time, at first, agreeing with Faircloth due to his unapologetic stance on the issues. Through ample examples, he conclusively explains how religious influence on a variety of issues harms everyone, including religious conservatives, and rigorously attempts to jostle us all into action.

Secular Americans remain a sleeping giant, a huge demographic that has thus far failed to flex its own muscle, much less galvanize the general population. We ignore people suffering under religious privilege while shaking our fist at a slapped-together manger with a plastic baby Jesus in the town square at Christmas time. While symbols are meaningful and these particular symbols on public grounds do violate Madison’s Constitution, Secular Americans must do better to reach all Americans. We must explain the human story — the human harm and the outright abuse of our tax dollars that result from religious privileging in law.

Faircloth aims at the outset to reach across the divide and enlighten both secular and religious readers, but the overall message will only fully pass the filters of a person with secular ideals. If you’re skeptical of the harm religious bias plays in each of our lives, read this book. It is unfortunate that an entire chapter of this small book was devoted to promoting the Secular Coalition for America, as though required by the publisher, but the message does act like a buttress for the chapter that follows.

We must protect the religious liberties guaranteed in the Constitution, including the right sof the so-called Moral Majority and their allies to express their ideas with absolute freedom. However, special privileges based on their religious bias, or anyone’s religious bias, must be removed from our laws. We must devote ourselves to rebuilding Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state, a wall that has crumbled so terribly these last thirty years .We must reinvigorate a culture o f innovation. And if we do these things, a great America will become even greater, a proud America will become even prouder.

Overall, Faircloth was able to promote a sense of urgency in a fast-paced read, while being inspirational and encouraging. Attack of the Theocrats! closes with a stimulating vision for a restored secular America, that will inspire you to action — if you’re already a secular American. I could give you all of the details, but you really need to turn through this one yourself.

…

An interview with the author:

How can non-theists better engage with religious communities to educate them on the benefits of State-Church separation?

I encourage secular people to create our own public advocacy organizations, but to also build alliances with local affiliates of groups like, for example, the gay community and liberal religious groups, but we should make sure to offer our own distinct voice.

What would you like to say to people feeling powerless in addressing the issues in the book?

The religious right felt powerless in the 1960s. They were, and are, a minority. They were ignored. They organized — very successfully — for their ideals of division and exclusion, sexism and homophobia. If they can do that, we can — and are morally required to — take action for justice, rationality and inclusion. Our demographic is growing. This is quite feasible — if people take action.

Why should people care what you have to convey?
American society faces creeping theocracy. It is just not a question of what might happen in the future. It is the stark reality of what has already happened, as I document in the book. We have a patriotic duty to act. The enlightment worldview is an ethical imperative. We betray that imperative if we sit on the sidelines. This book is about directly involving ourselves as secularlists in changing our world for the better.

The Secular Decade Strategic Objectives lay out a clear plan for how we can get involved in creating a secular America. Do you have any advice to parents?

I hold to the view that we want to encourage children to learn critical thinking skills and draw their own conclusions about a whole range of issues, including about religion. If young people so decide, I’d love to see youth involved in secular activism, partipating in the coalition activities I describe in my book. Young people can make very persuasive advocates on many issues, including, for example, advocating for objective textbooks and for protection of children from some forms of religious bias in law pertaining to corporal punishment, faith healing, and child care.

What spurred the writing of this book?

There have been tremendously persuasive books written for our perspective regarding whether or not to believe in god. But we have lacked a specific plan to empower us to play our proper role in society as a whole. I feel that the social action tactics in the secular movement need improvement. I wanted this book to offer a specific strategy for how to best frame our issues to appeal to a broader public.

While researching and writing this book, what did you learn about yourself (or otherwise)?

I learned how hard it is to write a book! I also learned that writing the plan and my motivations for it made me more impassioned about this cause. For my entire life — ten years in politics, lobbying, grassroots organizing, starting a children’s museum — I’ve wanted to see rationality prevail, to see the next generation live in a more rational and more compassionate world.

This book really crystallizes my own philosophy. It is not an armchair philosophy. It is a philosophy of passionate action. I’m not a great scientist like the great scientists I so admire (I’m honored to work for one). I do however think I’m good at forming concrete strategic plans and advocating for those plans with passion. This books makes me feel proud that I have something to offer in support of the Enlightment Worldview that I love.

…

You can purchase your copy of Attack of the Theocrats! here!

It doesn’t look much better:

Grade A: 17 Democrats, 0 Republicans
Grade B: 55 Democrats, 0 Republicans
Grade C: 110 Democrats, 6 Republicans
Grade D: 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans
Grade F: 3 Democrats, 230 Republicans

(Not all Reps were counted for different reasons.)

Can you tell which party opposes our values more…?

“The results of this report card show that our secular government struggles to be free from the encroachment of religion,” said Herb Silverman, president of the Secular Coalition. “The only way to protect everyone’s right to religious freedom is to keep all religion out of government and leave it free for the individual to pursue or not.”

In general, the Reps were scored based on their votes on 7 different issues important to Secular Americans, including eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood, expanding federal funding of religious schools in D.C., acknowledging that climate change is occurring, pushing for church transparency, promoting freedom of religious minorities, reaffirming “In God We Trust” as our national motto, and giving land to the anti-gay/anti-atheist Boy Scouts of America.

You can find how your state’s Reps did in the left-hand sidebar here.

Illinois didn’t fare too well. Only two As and even one member (Rep. Joe Walsh) with a 0%!

How did your state do?

Those two events may bookend his public life as an activist, but his activism outside the world of politics is equally compelling. (He gets bonus points for being a Math professor.)

In June of 2012, he’ll release an autobiography called Candidate Without A Prayer: An Autobiography of a Jewish Atheist in the Bible Belt (Pitchstone Publishing).

It’s one of the book I’m looking forward to reading next year and you can pre-order a copy now:

Incidentally, Amazon lists the full price right now, but my hunch is that it’ll drop by quite a bit by the time the book is actually released. Since no one gets charged until the release date, you’ll only pay the final price either way. TL; DR: You can pre-order it now and you’ll only be paying the final price. Amazon is awesome like that.

More information about the book will appear on this site closer to the release date, but for now, enjoy the cover

The grades break down like this:

An A means the candidate has been “consistently positive” on that issue.

A B means the candidate has been “neutral or occasionally positive” on that issue.

A C means the candidate has been “mixed, with positive and negative responses” on that issue.

An F means the candidate has been “consistently hostile or negative” on that issue.

When it comes to matters specific to Secular Americans, the Fs are running wild…

The full report (PDF) goes into detail about why each candidate received each grade, but here are the big takeaways:

• If you care about our issues, Jon Huntsman is the person you want emerging from the Republican side. And even with him, it’s not apparent where he stands on issues like taxpayer funding of religion (e.g. “faith-based initiatives”) or religious refusal laws (“conscience clauses,” which would allow, say, a town clerk in New York to refuse to give a gay couple a marriage license because it went against her faith or a Christian pharmacist to refuse to dispense birth control).
• Michele Bachmann would be a disaster. Fs down the line. Rick Perry would likely have followed suit, except there’s no word on how he’d respond to religious refusal laws. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum barely avoided the Epic Fail fate, but it’s clear neither of them have any respect for the issues that matter to a lot of us.
• For as much enthusiasm as he’s generating in Iowa, Ron Paul isn’t very good for us. He doesn’t accept evolution, he says he would “follow [Jesus] in all I do and in every position I advocate,” and he’s received the endorsement of Christian crazyman Chuck Norris. And that’s just the beginning of his problems.
• Mitt Romney actually receives a couple of As on the scorecard: He accepts evolution (though he believes a god began the whole process) and says he would not become a “spokesman” for his church if he were to become president. Neither one, though, makes me feel better about the words “President Romney.” (And is it really any surprise that the Flip Flop King earned that many Cs?)
• President Obama doesn’t receive a single F, but his inability to sign an executive order preventing taxpayer funded groups from proselytizing is extremely concerning. His Christianity doesn’t bother me per se, but he better “evolve” on the gay marriage issue pretty damn soon.

So what’s the overall message from all this?

None of the candidates are great when it comes to our issues, including the current president. Who knows how much different a Second Term Obama would be from version 1.0. If you have to go with one of the candidates based solely on “secular issues” (and you’d be foolish to do that), Obama’s still better than Huntsman only because Huntsman is still a question mark in many important areas.

When it comes to Republicans, though, there are some candidates who are better than others… even if you can’t fully “support” them.

Here’s a question for debate: Would you rather see someone like Jon Huntsman emerge as the Republican presidential candidate because he’s better on our issues? Or would you rather see someone like Michele Bachmann because she’s so goddamned awful on our issues that it wouldn’t even be a question of how we should vote? Or, phrased another way, would you rather see Obama go up against intelligent-but-flawed opposition or a cartoon-y super-villain?)

Or are you just not going to vote, because the lesser of two evils is still evil?

Maybe we can take solace in the fact that there are some Republicans who aren’t completely batshit crazy in every area. None of them are ideal, though.

I still hope the eventual Republican winner loses to Obama, only because I’m naïvely hoping he’ll become a better president if he doesn’t have to campaign again. If he loses to any of the current Republicans, I fear that we would inch that much closer to a theocracy.