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.

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

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

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

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

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

Are you getting excited?

(I’ll take your silence as a resounding “Yes!”)

Dave Silverman poses with 'The Village Atheist' sign - Jason Andrew/FT

I know, I know, you’ve heard all of this before. But a lot of people may not have and this article needs to come to their attention.

A couple of highlights:

The most extraordinary story I heard was from a woman in Tuscaloosa county, Alabama. She grew up in nearby Lamar county, raised in the strict Church of Christ, where there is no music with worship and you can’t dance. She says her family love her and are proud of her, but “I’m not allowed to be an atheist in Lamar County”. What is astonishing is that she can be pretty much anything else. “Being on crack, that was OK. As long as I believed in God, I was OK.” So, for example, “I’m not allowed to babysit. I have all these cousins who need babysitters but they’re afraid I’ll teach them about evolution, and I probably would.” I couldn’t quite believe this. She couldn’t babysit as an atheist, but she could when she was on crack? “Yes.” I laughed, but it is hard to think of anything less funny.

…

A report from the Pew Research Center last November showed that 53 per cent of Americans say it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. That is one reason why many are afraid of coming out, to the extent that both American Atheists and the American Humanist Association (AHA) will, on request, send mailings to members under plain covers. Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the AHA, says that even some of the committed rationalists who work in their Washington offices tell family that they work for a “humanitarian group”.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation also folds copies of their “newsletter,” Freethought Today, in such a way that the content isn’t visible unless you open the first page.

Even Playboy displays more of its cover than some atheist publications.

When I was growing up, I was the only atheist I knew. I had to get on my bike, ride to the public library and take out the one atheist book that they had in the whole library: The Case Against God by George Smith. Now any atheist can go on Facebook or Myspace and find literally millions of friends.”

That’s how much has changed in a decade. Even when I was in high school, the best resources for atheism I could find were shady AOL chatrooms or simplistic websites with more dry facts about atheism than interesting opinions.

Between books, the blogosphere, advertising campaigns, and the proliferation of local/campus atheist groups, it’s much harder to *not* find information about living without religion. Opinions criticizing Christianity are all over the place, even if they’re not always visible to the general public. The way to keep this momentum going is by encouraging others (and ourselves) to come out of the atheist closet. When the time is right, tell the people you trust that you don’t believe in god. At best, they’ll agree with you. Ideally, at worst, it’ll just be a non-issue.

(Thanks to everyone 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!

Von Lester Taylor - Utah Department of Corrections

After Von Lester Taylor pled guilty to murdering a mother and her daughter, a jury sentenced him to death.  Taylor now claims that one juror should have been disqualified due to his belief in “blood atonement” and that the entire jury selection process was invalid because evidence suggests the prosecution was deliberately excluding jurors who were not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The Supreme Court of Utah ultimately held Taylor should have raised these claims earlier in the appeals process and that, because Taylor provided no valid reason for his delay, it is now too late for the court to consider the claims.

Even though the decision focuses on procedure rather than on religion, the case poses some really interesting questions:

First, the blood atonement issue.  Blood atonement is generally understood as the belief that murder is so atrocious that it can only be forgiven if the murderer’s blood is shed.  In a murder trial such as Taylor’s, this seems problematic: Does this mean the juror would only feel comfortable sentencing a murderer to death, rather than some lesser punishment like life in prison?

In Taylor’s case, the answer happened to be no, as the Supreme Court of Utah held in an earlier appeal that the juror “believed the doctrine of blood atonement referred to the Christian belief that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world and not to the principle that anyone who kills must be killed,” and the juror believed “there may be circumstances in which a defendant who deliberately killed another person might not deserve the death penalty.”

But what if the answer had been yes?  What if the juror believed that the only acceptable punishment for murder was death?  Certainly it would not be fair for the defendant to be sentenced by this juror, as the juror’s sentence recommendation might always be death, regardless of the circumstances.

Which leads to another interesting question: Can attorneys reject jurors on the basis of their religion?  When selecting a jury for trial, attorneys are allowed to exclude potential jurors because, for example, there is good reason to believe the juror would not be able to be fair (that would be “for cause” exclusion).  Attorneys are also allowed a certain number of peremptory challenges, which they may use to exclude potential jurors that they simply don’t care for.  In Batson v. Kentucky (1986), however, the Supreme Court held “the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the State’s case against a black defendant.”

Does this prohibition extend to religion?  Religion, like race, carries a lot of import in this country.  If attorneys can’t exclude jurors on the basis of their race, then must they also be neutral with respect to religion?  Taylor himself complains that the prosecutor unfairly excluded non-Mormons, even though Taylor wanted the blood atonement juror excluded on the basis of a religious belief.

When I first read this case, my gut reaction was that Taylor was right (if the facts were exactly as he claimed them to be): A juror who believes in blood atonement should be excluded, yet prosecutors should not be able to favor Mormons in the jury selection process.  But how is this legally defensible, as both involve discriminating on the basis of religion?

This question has not been answered by the United States Supreme Court, but a case out of the Tenth Circuit suggests a resolution.  In U.S. v. Prince (2011), the Tenth Circuit explained there is a difference between religious belief and religious affiliation.  A prosecutor may strike a potential juror on the basis of religious belief (like the belief in blood atonement), but may not strike a potential juror on the basis of religious affiliation (like not being Mormon).  The court explains a prosecutor “may undoubtedly strike a juror for being unwilling to sit in judgment of another human being, but he may not infer solely from a prospective juror’s race, gender, or religion that he will be unwilling to sit in judgment of another, and then offer that unwillingness as a permissible basis for a peremptory challenge.”

Here, the existing law lines up quite nicely with my visceral reaction to the facts of the case.  What was your visceral reaction to these facts?  If you were on trial, who would you want excluded from your jury, and why?

He delivered again this week, when an ex-member of Mars Hill tentatively shared the horrifying story of his brutal excommunication from the church. To be fair, Driscoll himself was not the perpetrator of this particular injustice, but I cry foul on the leader of any organization who would choose to represent itself by such principles.

Part of the reason that Christianity can be so divisive is the belief that, as a Christian, fellow church-goers are appropriate partners and friends, while you are to distance yourself from non-Christians so as to not “fall into temptation.” As I’ve written before, my own youth group (and my husband’s, too, in a completely separate church three hours away) illustrated this by having a kid stand on a chair and then seeing if it was easier to be pulled down from the chair or to pull another person up. This was supposed to show us the danger of consorting with non-believers, and the potential for us to be dragged downward into their life of sin. I wish I was joking.

For this reason, many sects of Christianity are incredibly insular, placing enormous pressure on the believers to stay within the church network, and punishing those who dare to stray. Of course, this also means that removing or being removed from that network can have devastating effects on human lives, as an individual may find themselves literally alone, abandoned by the very people they loved, respected, and spent years developing relationships with.

So it is with Andrew, who made a major mistake by physically fooling around on his fiancé. He felt awful about the situation, confessed to his fiancé (the daughter of one of the church’s elders), and when that failed to resolve the hurt, confessed to an acquaintance, part of a small group at Mars Hill in which he was involved.

They called him a “predator.” Why?

“Because Pastor Mark teaches that women are “weaker vessels,” and therefore, when a girl and boy engage in consensual sexual activity, it is always assumed that it’s the man’s fault because he failed to lead the woman (or “weaker vessel”) toward righteousness.”

The church began a grisly process of ostracizing the guy, forcing him to go to meeting after meeting with church leaders, forcing him to confess the minutiae of his “sexual sin” –- including any physical parts of his relationship with his fiancé –- and pressured him into signing a “Church Discipline Contract”:

Disciplinary procedures are quite common for church leaders –- pastors, elders, and deacons, but this is the first I’ve heard of such an extensive, invasive, and ugly method for church attendees.

And it just gets worse.

After being emotionally manipulated and abused by the very group members he was supposed to trust, Andrew came to the painful conclusion that he could no longer continue attending Mars Hill. He sent them this email, explaining why he would forego signing the disciplinary contract:

“After extensive prayer and careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that Mars Hill is not the place that God has for me to be right now. Therefore, I respectfully decline your help in this next stage of my life. I will not be returning to [name of community group leader's] CG, and will not be attending Mars Hill anymore. Thank you for your continued prayers.”

In the most respectful way possible, Andrew removed himself from a destructive, abusive environment. In response, group leaders informed him that they would have to “escalate” the church’s disciplinary proceedings, in essence saying, “wait, we’re not through punishing you yet!” The email that Andrew received in response said this:

“If this is your final decision, you will also need to know this will not be our final communication as this is not an instance where you can walk away from the mess you have helped create and leave many issues unaddressed.”

In a disgusting turn, their apparent idea of further communication consisted of a back-biting document posted to The City — what Andrew describes as the “Facebook for Mars Hill members.” However, his login information had been blacklisted from The City, and he only discovered the letter after a friend from Mars Hill had informed him.

How’s that for Christian love? And you can probably just imagine, if believers and church members are treated with this sort of bullying and manipulation, what they think of us atheists.

Andrew, I’m glad you’re out of that toxic environment. You deserve much, much better. We all do.

Katherine Stewart

Katherine was gracious enough to answer questions about her book and our exchange is below:

Hemant: The book’s subtitle is “The Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children.” Can you explain the “stealth” part of that? What exactly is the Christian Right doing that’s somewhat secretive or sneaky?

Katherine: Many of the initiatives I looked at rely to a surprising degree on misdirection and deceit of one group or another. The Good News Club itself, for example presents itself to parent and administrators as an outside group. But it creates the false but unavoidable (and, as far as I can tell, intentional) impression in young school children that its form of religion is officially endorsed by the school. It describes itself with nonthreatening labels such as “nondenominational” and “interdenominational,” which makes people think it’s broadly Christian, when in fact it’s highly sectarian. And it pretends to offer “Bible study,” when really it’s about indoctrinating kids in a fundamentalist form of religion. Anyone who doubts that should read the Statement of Faith on their workers’ applications.

Other religious initiatives are equally sneaky. The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools curriculum courses, for instance, present themselves as nonsectarian study of the Bible as a work of literature and history. But that’s just a thin cover for sectarian proselytizing. The “pizza evangelists,” who come into the schools under the pretense of offering instruction on bullying, anti-drug awareness, or character education turn around and use the platform to create opportunities for proselytizing. I should add that many of the activists I spoke to, and whom I describe in my book, take a delight in the sneakiness of their approach.

Hemant: If parents need to give permission for their children to attend meetings of the Good News Clubs, why does the fact that these groups meet in a school setting matter? Wouldn’t these parents just teach their children the same things in their own house or at a church if the school wasn’t an option?

Katherine: With older kids, that approach makes some sense. But remember, Good News Clubs focus on very young kids, in their first years of public schooling; a centerpiece of their program is the “wordless book,” which can be used to convert children as young as four and five years old. Kids at that age simply aren’t able to distinguish what takes place in a school and what is endorsed by the school.

Remember: we’re talking about little kids here. In their minds, no institution has as much authority as the public school. For them, if it is taught in school, it must be true.

I have seen several instances, including at my own elementary school, when the Good News Clubs were offered cheaper and better space at a church immediately next door to the school, and they declined. They want to be in the school because they know that kids will think their Club is endorsed by the school. Another important factor is that by placing the Clubs in the school, it becomes easier for Good News Club instructors to persuade the children enrolled in their groups to work to recruit other children in the school.

Hemant: What was the significance of the 2001 Supreme Court decision in Good News Club v. Milford Central School? How does it come into play today?

Katherine: The Milford decision removed any serious Establishment Clause concerns in connection with Good News-style activities, and at the same time it said that to exclude such activities represented an unconstitutional violation of speech rights. The net effect has been to propose that whenever a school creates what is technically known as a “limited public forum,” which is to say, as soon as it opens its doors to outside groups of pretty much any kind, it must allow religious groups such as the Good News Club. This decision opened the way for church planting in public schools and a host of other religious initiatives in schools.

In effect it gives a trump card to religious groups, because it is only in the case of religious groups that to exclude them amounts to a violation of their speech rights. So now schools can exclude a soccer club, or martial arts, or political groups, or a theater group if they wish, but the one category they may not exclude is religious groups.

The Good News Clubs made quick use of this trump card. Their numbers in public schools went up 728 per cent in the ten years since the Milford decision. And church-planting in New York City’s public schools went from 0 to 160 over the same period.

This decision is problematic, in my view. Schools routinely exclude partisan political groups from meeting in the school building, for instance, and nobody imagines that we are discriminating against anybody’s viewpoint. But now, when religious groups are excluded, they complain that they are being discriminated against. The Milford decision also undermined the idea that peer pressure or coercion are important factors in school-related cases.

Hemant: Do all these Christian groups need to pay the schools rent for use of the space? Do they pay what other similar groups pay? And can they get away with not paying if it’s a school-sanctioned club like many other after-school groups?

Katherine: Generally they pay what other outside groups pay, which is not very much. But in many instances, you can’t call it “rent” — it is generally a use fee or a custodian’s fee. In the instance of churches planted in public schools in New York City, it amounts to a state subsidy. Instead of paying for their own buildings, buying their own furniture, paying for heat, electricity, air conditioning, renovations, and upkeep of the facility, the churches in question simply paid a custodians’ fee. That’s not “rent” by any stretch of the imagination.

Hemant: I only know of a handful of high school atheist groups and possibly only one middle school atheist group. Do any other religious groups (or atheist groups) try to form in elementary schools or is that strictly a Christian phenomenon? Either way, would that be a good idea for those of us who are not Christian?

Katherine: I don’t know of any atheist groups in elementary schools, but I think it would be a bad idea for the same reason that I think it’s a bad idea for the Christian groups to do it. However, it would be interesting to know what would happen if people were to try to set up an atheist group in a public elementary school that went after “churched” kids, the way Good News Clubs go after “unchurched” kids. If such a club were disallowed, that would highlight problems with the current policy and might potentially be used to challenge it.

Hemant: Would you rather see schools allow *all* religious groups to meet in the building (outside of class time) or should they close the doors to religious groups altogether? Are both legal options?

Katherine: Again, if we are talking about elementary schools, I would exclude religion as a category, just as we exclude politics as a category. It used to be legal to exclude religion as a category, and it is legal in a limited way in certain contexts. However, in most of the country, as a result of the Milford decision, it is no longer legal to exclude religious groups.

At the high school level, I think after-school groups in general should have maximum leeway. But bear in mind that a number of the religious groups make an effort to insert themselves in school-related activities, such as athletics. If Christian athletes want to get together after the game and after school to talk about their religion or engage in acts of worship, that seems perfectly fine. But many groups now attempt to make their religion part of the game, inevitably forcing everyone on the team to take a public stand.

We should not get overly legalistic here. Some things are legally or constitutionally permissible, but that does not mean that they are the right thing to do. If a school in a diverse community is to function well, its members need to show a certain amount of civility and respect toward one another. We are all free to practice our faith, if any, in our homes, houses of worship, and any number of other places. Do we really need to turn our public schools into religious battlefields?

Hemant: At one point in the book, Pastor Rich Lang compares the methods of the Child Evangelism Fellowship (which runs the Good News Clubs) to the Hitler Youth because of the way they target children. Is that a fair comparison?

Katherine: Some of the evangelical missionaries that I have read explicitly cite the Nazis, the Taliban, and the Bolsheviks as models of other groups that focus on children. Not every effort to preach to the young is a form of fascism, but fascism characteristically involves indoctrination of the young.

Hemant: Other than getting educated on the issues, what would you like readers to do in response to reading your book?

Katherine: They should support groups working for the separation of church and state. They should support politicians and political movements that work to bring better people to the judiciary. They should strengthen programs and policies that promote tolerance and civility in our public schools. They should inform themselves about what is taking place in their local schools, and they should educate others about this movement in our midst.

The Good News Club is available today in the four bookstores left in the country and everywhere online.

Now, Harrison is back with a new book called 50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True. (Details for how you can win a copy of the book are at the bottom of this post!)

Not surprisingly, the book offers rebuttals to (among many other things) psychic powers, homeopathy, Holocaust deniers, and moon hoaxers.

And anti-vaxxers.

The excerpt below is from Harrison’s chapter on why vaccines are safe and sound and avoiding them hurts us all:

DEADLY CONSEQUENCES

Heated debates that pit science against pseudoscience — evolution versus creationism, for example — rage on and on. But few of them rack up casualties and have the potential for mayhem like the anti-vaccine controversy. This particular clash between reason and irrational belief is literally killing children right now. Vaccination rates have plunged in parts of America and the United Kingdom because of misinformation and unjustified fears. According to the United Kingdom’s Health Protection Agency, a drop in vaccination coverage levels has again made measles endemic in the UK after it had already been wiped out by vaccines decades ago.

Much of the fears were stirred up in 1998 when British doctor Andrew Wakefield published research claiming that the measles vaccine causes autism. He said the vaccine inflamed intestines, causing harmful proteins to leak out that then made their way to the brain, where they caused autism. This generated considerable coverage in the mainstream media which, of course, sent waves of fear straight into the hearts of millions of parents. Many of them made the decision not to vaccinate their children as a result. Predictably, this was followed by outbreaks of preventable diseases that killed children. Soon after Wakefield’s announcement, MMR vaccine rates dropped from nearly 90 percent to as low as 50 percent in some areas of London. Now comes the kicker: It turned out that Wakefield’s research is garbage. Other scientists could not confirm his findings. Something was wrong, very wrong. But not only has his work been deemed scientifically flawed, it has ethical problems as well. Investigative journalist Brian Deer reported that Wakefield’s study was funded by a lawyer who also was representing five of eight children used in the study for a suit against pharmaceutical companies. In 2010, the Lancet medical journal formally retracted Wakefield’s study that they had published, and the General Medical Council removed Wakefield’s name from the medical register. He can no longer practice medicine in England.

In the late 1990s, antivaccination activists set their sights on a preservative used in some vaccines called thimerosal. No studies suggested that thimerosal might cause autism, but pharmaceutical companies removed it as a precaution anyway. Now, years later, autism rates have continued to rise. “After all the research,” writes Michael Specter in his book, Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives, “thimerosal may be the only substance we might say with some certainty doesn’t cause autism; many public health officials have argued that it would make better sense to spend the energy and money searching for a more likely cause.”

Multiple studies have failed to find evidence of an autism-vaccine link. In Japan, the feared MMR “vaccine cocktail” was withdrawn and replaced by single vaccines. A study of thirty thousand children there found that autism rates continued to rise even in MMR’s absence. Other countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Sweden removed thimerosal from vaccines only to see autism rates continue to rise. Meanwhile, researchers in Finland looked for an autism-vaccine link by analyzing the medical records of more than two million children. They found nothing.

It seems to me that vaccines are victims of their own success. People who are fortunate enough to live in countries with strong vaccination programs have been lulled into a false sense of security. Diseases once feared are not so scary anymore. Measles, for example, does not strike fear in the heart of the typical American. But it’s not a disease we should take lightly. It causes brain swelling and high fever and is often fatal. In the past, measles killed millions in Europe and America. It still kills more than one million children per year in the developing world today. Nevertheless, many parents are being scared away from the measles vaccine by warnings with no credible science behind them. The percentage of unvaccinated children in the United States has doubled since 1991. This is as infuriating as it is absurd. We are moving backward.

Dr. Paul Offit, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is one of the world’s leading experts on vaccines. He is also currently waging a professional war against the antivaccine movement. But it is also clearly personal for him. His frustration and concern for children are often readily apparent when he describes the irresponsible decision to deny vaccines. “The problem with waning immunization rates in the United States isn’t theoretical anymore,” he told me. “Recent outbreaks of measles, whooping cough, mumps, and bacterial meningitis show a clear breakdown in population immunity. Children are now suffering the diseases of their grandparents. It’s unconscionable.”

…

“THEY’RE NOT STUPID, JUST IGNORANT”

Nurse Shawn R. Browning is in the trenches on the frontlines of this issue. She has nearly two decades of experience in the medical field, most of it working with the US Navy. She regularly administers vaccines to military personnel and their families. She also has been involved with immunization education for many years. Irrational fears about vaccines are nothing new to her.

“I have had plenty of parents and patients that are misinformed about vaccines,” she said. “When they tell me they don’t want to get a particular vaccine, the first thing I ask them is, ‘why’? I have heard everything from the thimerosal content is bad for you, vaccines cause autism — particularly the MMR vaccine — and everything in between. By law I give them the VIS [vaccine information statements], but in addition I also educate them on the pros of receiving the vaccine versus not. What I have learned is that more times than not, people are willing to get the vaccine once it is explained to them in words they can understand and relate to. They’re not stupid, just ignorant. They have listened to their neighbors, the media, and everyone else and have formed an unjustified opinion. Drives me crazy! Many parents and patients have expressed their gratitude that someone has taken the time to explain things instead of just sticking a needle in them without any explanation. I think our particular patient population is more vaccine hesitant than antivaccine.”

Like most healthcare professionals, Browning is concerned that this reluctance to vaccinate might lead to major outbreaks of preventable diseases:

The biggest fear is that preventable diseases will rise to epidemic proportions again. Infants and children are going to die or be disabled because adults are ignorant and won’t vaccinate themselves or their children. The outbreak of pertussis [whooping cough] is the latest. People think that since they are adults, they don’t need a vaccine. Yet how many die from complications from the flu every year? [Influenza virus, the flu, kills as many as five hundred thousand people each year worldwide, according to the World Health Organization.15] It’s very scary. We also have an obligation to get vaccinated to protect those [who] can’t be vaccinated due to various reasons [such as immune system problems].

There was this mom [who] came into our clinic a little more than a year ago to get her one-year-old daughter her immunizations. The corpsman that brought them back to the room started to explain the vaccines the child would be getting and their potential side effects to the mom. The mom politely interrupted the corpsman and proceeded to explain that this child was not her first baby. She had once been “one of those moms” who didn’t believe in vaccines, and her first little girl had died when she got the measles. Just how do you respond to that? Your heart breaks.

Offit adds, “The science is largely complete. Ten epidemiological studies have shown MMR vaccine doesn’t cause autism; six have shown thimerosal [preservative once used in vaccines] doesn’t cause autism; three have shown thimerosal doesn’t cause subtle neurological problems; a growing body of evidence now points to the genes that link to autism; and despite the removal of thimerosal from vaccines in 2001, the number of children with autism continues to rise.”

In 1997, 4,138 children entered California kindergartens without being vaccinated because they had exemptions. By 2008, that number had more than doubled. Parents citing religious or philosophical objections to having their children vaccinated are putting not only their own children at risk but the lives of many others as well. Babies who are too young to be vaccinated can be infected and die. Children who have immune system problems and cannot be vaccinated have to rely on others around them to be vaccinated in order to keep the diseases at bay. When vaccination rates drop, danger to these vulnerable groups increases. According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) expert, a parent’s decision to refuse vaccination means his or her child is thirty-five times more likely to get measles and twenty-two times more likely to come down with pertussis (whooping cough). Please don’t think for a second that this is exaggeration or fearmongering. Children are paying a price for this madness in small pockets across America now, and the potential for much greater suffering is real. In April 2011, for example, a private school in Virginia had to close because half its students were infected with pertussis. None of the children had been vaccinated. Many of the parents had obtained religious exemptions that officially sanctioned their negligence. News of several recent infant deaths in California due to pertussis either had not reached those parents or failed to impress them.

Why subject children to this unnecessary danger? To protect them from autism? Very large, thorough, and expensive scientific studies did not find any reason to conclude that vaccines cause autism. Therefore it simply makes no sense to withhold such important protection from a child.

From 50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True (Prometheus Books, 2012). Reprinted by permission of the publisher.

If you’d like to win a copy of the book, just leave a comment telling us about a belief you used to hold and what ultimately led you away from it! (God doesn’t count. We’ve heard that one before.) Please include the word “Bermuda” at the end of your comment if you’d like to be considered for the prize!