Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1977

Friendly Atheist Podcast Episode 5: Amy Dickinson

Our latest podcast guest is Amy Dickinson, best known as the syndicated columnist behind “Ask Amy” and as a panelist on NPR’s “Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me!”:

We spoke with Amy about her most viral column ever, whether Carl Kasell does the message on her voicemail, if her own child comes to her for advice, and so much more!

We’d love to hear your thoughts on the podcast. If you have any suggestions for people we should chat with, please leave them in the comments, too.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, get the MP3 directly, or just listen to the whole thing below.

And if you like what you’re hearing, please consider supporting this site on Patreon and leaving us a positive rating!

Federal Court Overturns Indiana’s Ban on Secular Celebrants Who Want to Perform Weddings

According to Indiana Code 31-11-6-1, only a handful of people are allowed to perform a marriage: members of the clergy, churches themselves, a mayor, a city clerk… but not a Secular Celebrant or Humanist Celebrant.

The Center For Inquiry sued the state over this in 2012, saying it was unconstitutional to allow people of faith to be married by their faith leaders, while denying non-religious people the same right to have their marriages performed by a Celebrant.

This represents a clear preference for religion over non-religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and denies rights secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Unfortunately, an Indiana federal district court ruled against CFI that December. The judge said that non-religious people already *can* perform weddings… provided that they go through the proper channels. Becoming a trained Celebrant, however, didn’t qualify as a “proper channel”:

We conclude that the Solemnization Statute is rationally related to the legitimate purpose of alleviating significant governmental interference with pre-existing religious beliefs about marriage. Additionally, the statute bears a rational relation to the equally reasonable purpose of allowing the government to assume responsibility for the marriage regulation function without ostracizing its religious constituents. For these and all of the reasons explicated above, we find that Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim — whether grounded in Free Exercise Clause or Establishment Clause jurisprudence — does not succeed on the merits.

The court offered alternative ways for Secular Celebrants to perform weddings:

… there are several readily available avenues by which a Secular Celebrant may facilitate a marriage ceremony in Indiana: she may (1) preside at a wedding and then instruct the couple to go before one of the individuals listed in the Solemnization Statute to have the marriage solemnized; (2) become a member of the “clergy” by seeking immediate Internet ordination from the Universal Life Church; or (3) seek certification to solemnize marriages from the Humanist Society.

So… to paraphrase:

1) Secular Celebrants could perform a wedding… as long as they told the couple to go see a Rabbi afterwards.

2) Secular Celebrants could perform a wedding… but they had to pay a few bucks to a random church online.

3) Secular Celebrants could perform a wedding… as long as they were certified by a group founded by Quakers.

It was really an astonishing verdict. A trained Secular Celebrant was unable to legally perform a wedding, but a random schmuck who paid a few bucks online could? How that could be seen as anything but an unfair preference to religious people (who don’t have to have any particular credentials) was lost on me.

CFI filed an appeal shortly after that, but it wasn’t until today — more than a year later — that the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit weighed in on the matter.

And the three-judge panel unanimously overturned the lower court’s decision. Judge Frank H. Easterbrook wrote a blistering decision against the state:

Plaintiffs find these options unacceptable; they are unwilling to pretend to be something they are not, or pretend to believe something they do not; they are shut out as long as they are sincere in following an ethical system that does not worship any god, adopt any theology, or accept a religious label… An accommodation cannot treat religions favorably when secular groups are identical with respect to the attribute selected for that accommodation.

…

These examples, and the state’s willingness to recognize marriages performed by hypocrites, show that the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the First Amendment. It is irrational to allow humanists to solemnize marriages if, and only if, they falsely declare that they are a “religion.” It is absurd to give the Church of Satan, whose high priestess avows that her powers derive from having sex with Satan, and the Universal Life Church, which sells credentials to anyone with a credit card, a preferred position over Buddhists, who emphasize love and peace. A marriage solemnized by a self-declared hypocrite would leave a sour taste in the couple’s mouths; like many others, humanists want a ceremony that celebrates their values, not the “values” of people who will say or do whatever it takes to jump through some statutory hoop.

Wow. Very blunt and very reasonable. (And the judges get bonus points for including the phrase “powers derive from having sex with Satan” in a legal decision.)

CFI, as you can imagine, is thrilled with the result, writing via email:

“This is a major victory for all secular Americans, who despite being part of the fasted-growing belief demographic in the United States, still suffer from discrimination and the special privileges accorded religion,” said Ronald A. Lindsay, President and CEO of CFI. “It is deeply satisfying that the judges of the 7th Circuit have recognized that nonreligious Americans are entitled to the same rights as religious Americans.”

“The court has gotten this exactly right,” lauded Reba Boyd Wooden, Co-Director of the Secular Celebrant program for CFI and Executive Director of CFI’s Indiana branch. “The secular humanists that I know hold their values as dearly as any religion person, and they deserve to be able to celebrate life’s great milestones in a way that reflects those values. Whether a person is atheist, agnostic, humanist, or simply doesn’t want a religious wedding, this decision means they can now have these wonderful occasions solemnized by a celebrant who shares their life-stance.“

Congratulations to CFI and Wooden for fighting this drawn-out battle and coming away with a decisive victory.

No word yet on whether the state will try to fight this, but it would be a complete waste of resources if they did. Today’s decision hurts nobody at all. It’s an expansion of rights that allows atheists in Indiana to have weddings officiated by trained celebrants who don’t have to lie about their religious affiliations.

(Image via Shutterstock. Portions of this article were posted earlier.)

Child Abuse at Christian Boot Camps Exposed After Survivors Speak Out

Growing up as a conservative Christian, I always heard about those one or two kids who got sent away to special “camps” after they had “issues” with their families over things like their sexuality. They’d disappear for a semester or a year with little explanation or fanfare. They’d usually be quiet and withdrawn from church functions for a period of time beforehand, and then, poof! they’d be gone.

When they came back, they’d either be shiny-bright and smiley and give a testimony before the church about how they got saved from the error of their ways at camp, or they would be even more withdrawn and absent and eventually just disappear from the church scene (and sometimes from their families) altogether.

I never had a great feeling about what went on at those camps, and it wasn’t until years later when I was talking to a friend who went to one (in the U.S.) for a summer leadership training and ended up staying for over a year, that I had a better idea of what these places were like.

This past week, Newsweek , a Christian reform school in the Dominican Republic that’s the subject of a forthcoming documentary called Kidnapped for Christ.

Escuela Caribe, like many of these schools, is seen by many parents as a last resort to try and whip their kids into shape under the terms of the fundamentalist Christianity they espouse — a faith where homosexuality, depression, schizophrenia, and anxiety disorders are frequently written off as “rebellion” or “demonic possession.”

As a result, the kids sent to these places aren’t actually helped. The stressful environment coupled with no true accountability or regulation often creates an environment of systemic abuse, as the Newsweek report indicates:

By her second day at the school, [Deirdre] Sugiuchi’s image of a nurturing Christian boarding school was shattered when her “house father” made her perform exercises for hours.

“According to him, I had ‘an authority problem’ at home. He made me do bear crawls, pushups and duck walks. He had me hold my arms out balancing books until I cried from pain,” she wrote on a website dedicated to collecting the stories of survivors of the school. “We had 24-year-old male house fathers in a house full of teenage girls. I had a house father that used to watch me change clothes. I was constantly either being abused or seeing people be abused,” she tells Newsweek.

Swatting, or being struck on the rear with a wooden paddle, was among the disciplinary practices at the school, along with a “quiet room” where students deemed particularly insubordinate would be isolated for days with only a thin mattress. A system of points based on obedience kept students on different levels, and low-ranking students would be forced to ask permission to perform any task, and supervised at all times by higher-ranking students, including in the shower, Sugiuchi says.

“When I was there, at 17, I was a high ranker, and it was my job to make sure [low rankers] were properly washing their private parts in the shower. I had to make sure they soaped. That was how I spent my senior year,” she says. Phone calls to parents were recorded, and written letters were monitored. “They would do anything to keep you there.”

Escuela Caribe, which was closed in 2011, is just one of several New Horizons Ministries schools under scrutiny for abuse, as alumni have congregated online to tell their stories. One such site, The Truth About New Horizons Youth Ministries, states its purpose as:

We are a group of former students who have reconnected through the Internet and wish to share our collective experience at New Horizons. We range in age from our teens to our late 30s, and attended “The Program” between the mid-1980s and 2002.

New Horizons Youth Ministries Inc. purports to help adolescents through “Christian milieu therapy” but in fact does more harm than good. Most of our complaints center on Escuela Caribe, the boot camp located in the Dominican Republic, where we witnessed and experienced physical and emotional abuse, were subjected to young, untrained staff, and had our communication home monitored to keep us from divulging the truth to our families.

This is just part and parcel with the growing evangelical child abuse scandal, and I am grateful that producer and director Kate Logan got the documentary funded and out in the public eye. We need it badly.

(Image via Shutterstock)

A Catholic Doctor in Poland Refused to Perform or Facilitate an Abortion, so Warsaw’s Mayor Fired Him

Finally, some common sense at a Catholic hospital, but it’s not from within the walls.

Abortions are typically banned in Poland, but there are exceptions in certain instances like if the woman’s life is in jeopardy or if the fetus is seriously deformed or unhealthy. In the latter case, an abortion can be obtained only through the second trimester. If a doctor doesn’t want to perform the procedure, s/he must direct the patient to a different doctor who will.

On Wednesday, Mayor Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz (above) of Poland fired the head of Holy Family Hospital, Dr. Bogdan Chazan, for ignoring those rules. A woman whose fetus had serious health problems wanted to obtain an abortion within the legally allowed timeframe — but Chazan not only refused to perform it, he didn’t tell her about her other options and made her take unnecessary medical tests that pushed her over the legal deadline for the procedure:

Prof Chazan sent the woman a letter saying he could not agree to an abortion in his hospital because of a “conflict of conscience,” and instead gave the woman the address of a hospice where, he said, the child could get palliative care once born.

The baby was born at a different hospital with, according to a doctor there, severe head and facial deformities and a brain that was not viable, conditions which the doctor said would result in the child’s death within a month or two.

Catholics are overwhelmingly standing in defense of Chazan, as if he’s some sort of martyr for the cause. Even the Archbishop of Warsaw, Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, stated that this was a “dangerous precedent, violating the rights not only of Catholics but of all people.”

No rights were violated. Chazan couldn’t do his job or follow the law properly and he was correctly sacked as a result. Would he have acted the same way if the woman’s life was in jeopardy? No one was forcing Chazan to perform an abortion against his will. But he was required to provide his patient was all of her options. Instead of doing that, he forced his will upon her body, and a child will suffer a prolonged death as a result. Even if you’re anti-abortion, I don’t see how that’s a better option for the child involved.

Elected officials in the United States don’t have the power to fire incompetent doctors at Catholic hospitals who withhold vital information from their patients. But it’s good to see that, in Poland, there was some sense of justice, reinforcing the idea that a patient’s rights always come first (even if the law, as it stands, is draconian).

(Thanks to Scott for the link)

George Fox University, with Title IX Religious Exemption in Hand, Discriminates Against Transgender Student

I happened to graduate from a school that’s notorious for being exempt from Title IX, the law that says schools receiving federal funding can’t discriminate on the basis of gender. After the rash of rape-related Title IX rights violations over the past few years, I tend to keep my eyes open for instances where Christian colleges are using exemptions from the nines to practice hypocritical Christianity and bigotry on their campuses.

The latest of these violations in the guise of religious freedom is taking place at George Fox University in Portland, Oregon. Jayce Marcus (above), a fully transitioned transgender man, has been in a battle with the school for equal access to male housing. The school showed its desperation to remain inhospitable to LGBTQ individuals through a hush-hush, rush application for a religious exemption from Title IX from the Department of Education. Simply put, they didn’t want to allow someone they still believe is female to live with men.

Jayce’s attorney, Paul Southwick, was quoted in Portland Quarterly‘s article on the situation, saying:

“George Fox University… without telling us, requested a religious exemption to the Title IX regulations regarding housing, restrooms and athletics as they apply to transgender students… GFU requested this exemption from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) a mere three days before denying Jayce’s final appeal to the university and a mere four days before Jayce filed his complaint with the ED. The ED granted the request for the religious exemption with surprising speed — only two months, rather than the years it has taken historically to get an exemption. Based on the exemption, the ED closed Jayce’s complaint. The ED did all of this without telling us anything about the exemption request, despite my repeated calls and emails for information and status updates. After I received their letter, a representative from ED told me he was ‘not authorized’ to discuss the religious exemption with me. Normally, the ED decides whether to investigate a complaint within 30 days. In Jayce’s case, they made us wait about 90 days, all without telling us the real reason they were making us wait. We are going to appeal the ED’s ruling.”

Jayce will be forced to continue to live off campus and use the women’s facilities at his school, even though they are no longer appropriate for him. Transgender people are already at an incredibly high risk for violence in the U.S. By living off campus, Jayce’s safety may be even more compromised than if he were living on campus, especially now that his case has been covered in so much of the local media.

Jayce and Southwick are particularly frustrated by the fact that this means George Fox will still be allowed to receive taxpayer funding while under the religious exemption (which is very abnormal).

“To my knowledge, this is the first Christian college to ask the federal government for a permission slip to discriminate against transgender students,” Southwick says. “This is worse than Hobby Lobby because George Fox is largely funded by taxpayer money. While the government may have granted George Fox an exemption for the time being, private companies do not need to tolerate this discriminatory behavior. Nike, whose logo is on George Fox’s athletic gear, and Intel and Starbucks, who are major employers of George Fox graduates, can let the university know how they feel about the university’s discriminatory actions.”

I have several friends who are students at or alumni of George Fox, and they are discouraged by the choices made by the university leadership. Caitlin Kellogg (of the ever-delightful Hogwarts Seminary Tumblr) and current seminary student at GFU urged people (in an email to me) to sign a petition regarding the injustice of Jayce’s situation:

As a master’s of theology student at George Fox Seminary, I am deeply disappointed and disgusted by their decision to secretly request a religious exemption from Title IX. The more I’ve studied the Bible, the more I come to understand the heart of justice, and the call to partake in bringing heaven on earth. As Christians, we are called to care for the marginalized, the voiceless, to love our neighbors, and to love our enemies. Just as Jesus showed us. Where is there love in religious exemption? They are protecting their own power and position, while maintaining the lie that they are “loving” Jayce. That is not love, that is manipulation, hypocrisy, and abuse. The University’s decision does not align to Bible I know, nor the Jesus they claim to follow.

You can sign the petition here, too.

This Church Teaches Evolution Classes Over the Summer, and Creationist Ken Ham is Furious

When 30 kids gather inside a church over the summer, you expect to hear about Vacation Bible School. But the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Springfield (Missouri) does something far more useful:

Instead of reading Bible stories about Adam and Eve, these kids are reading from “Big Bang” and learning about evolution.

…

Most of the kids who attended are not members of First UU. Some attend other churches; some don’t go to church; some are homeschooled; some are in public school. But all are there because they love science, and their parents are “freethinkers” who want their children to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

“It’s awe-inspiring, an amazing thing, how the earth came together,” [First UU's director of religious education Jennifer] Lara said as she explained the program. “We can just enjoy the beauty of the science.”

I love the name of it, too: “We are all Stars Evolution Camp”

What a wonderful, necessary program, instilling the joy of science to children who may not receive that education elsewhere. Who could possibly have a problem with it?!

Oh… right. Ken Ham.

He’s very angry that these *supposedly* Christian parents would dare to teach their children about how the world works instead of forcing biblical mythology in their minds:

So they want their children exposed to a “variety of viewpoints” — as long as the Christian viewpoint is not a part of the program!

In Ham’s mind, there’s only one True ChristianTM viewpoint: the one that takes the Book of Genesis literally. All Christians who believe otherwise are heretics.

And then he goes off on his usual tirade about how evolution is part of a secular religion that’s taught in public schools:

Evolution is basically taught as fact in most of the public education system — and it’s Christians and the teaching of creation that are discriminated against. There are some Christian teachers (and they are a small minority) who will do their best to teach students to think critically about origins — but by and large, most students are taught evolution as fact.

If only evolution were taught as fact… but you have to laugh at Ham’s use of the word discrimination. As if it’s “discrimination” when schools don’t teach unproven, unscientific, foolish ideas.

Not all theories are equally valid, and Creationism isn’t even in the ballpark. All of the parents taking their children to the UU church should be thrilled that their children are receiving an evidence-based education instead of mindless indoctrination.

Austin Atheists Helping the Homeless Looking for Donations from All 50 States

For nearly five years now, a volunteer group of atheists called Austin Atheists Helping the Homeless has gathered each month to hand out care packages to people in their community who need it the most. Their funding comes entirely from donations and there’s no proselytizing involved (unless you include any signs with the group’s name). Just a great cause all around.

Well, their five year anniversary is coming up this September and they’d love to get donations from all 50 states. Since they’re not yet set up to take cash donations, the best way to help them out would be to purchase items on their Amazon Wish List. (The shipping address is located in the description section.)

It would be great to see that list fulfilled quickly. I bought an item already. Hope you’ll join me.

Pope Francis: 1 in 50 Clergy Members Are Pedophiles

Last year, Pope Francis wrote a three-page-long letter that was published in the Italian daily La Repubblica. The letter came in response to two open letters written by the newpaper’s editor, Eugenio Scalfari, a well-known atheist.

At the time, the Pope made headlines because he wrote that God’s mercy was available to atheists, if only they would “obey their conscience.” The media widely reported this as the Pope saying even atheists could go to heaven, though that’s not exactly accurate.

Today, La Repubblica is back in the news. In an hour-long interview with Scalfari, Pope Francis reportedly made what sounded like a shocking admission:

Francis condemned child sex abuse as a “leprosy” in the Church and cited his aides as saying that “the level of pedophilia in the Church is at two percent.” That figure includes priests “and even bishops and cardinals,” Italy’s La Repubblica daily quoted Francis as saying.

Two percent amounts to more than 8,000 Catholic leaders worldwide, a number that sounds ridiculously high, even for the Church, and a perfect example of where speaking off-the-cuff — and throwing out random numbers — can get you into big trouble.

The Pope also mentioned in the interview that the requirement of celibacy for priests was a problem, adding that “there are solutions and I will find them.”

It’s worth noting that Scalfari isn’t known to take notes during interviews. He just chats with his subjects and then writes the articles from memory. His 90-year-old memory. That doesn’t mean he’s making anything up. But when you have an interview from memory mixed with a Pope who doesn’t always deliver accurate sound bites off the top of his head, it’s not a very good combination.

As always, the Vatican was there to walk back some of the Pope’s comments:

Papal spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said that the quote on celibacy, as well as another in which Francis says cardinals were among the sex abusers, are inaccurate. Lombardi accused La Repubblica of trying to “manipulate naive readers,” according to Reuters.

There’s no evidence of any manipulation, for what it’s worth.

Look, this is the same Pope who was widely heralded for saying of gay people, “Who am I to judge?” even though the Church’s policies against gay people remain as awful as ever. He has a tendency to say seemingly-radical things that sound like a step forward for the Church… even though nothing changes from the inside. This appears to be just another example of that trend.

You would think that acknowledging the pedophilia problem within the Church is a good sign, but until there’s concrete action from the Vatican, there’s no reason to believe anything is really improving.

South Carolina Town Rallies Behind Police Chief Fired for Being a Lesbian

Last April, Crystal Moore (below) was fired as the police chief of Latta, South Carolina. It happened without warning. Mayor Earl Bullard claimed she was dismissed because of “sheer insubordination,” though Moore felt her status as an out lesbian had something to do with it. She had a point: In her nearly 20 years of service to the town, she hadn’t been reprimanded once.

Town Councilman Jarett Taylor thought she had a point, too. So he began recording his conversations with the mayor — something that’s legal to do in the state — in part because he knew the mayor had a reputation for lying. What he got on tape was just incredible:

I would much rather have — and I will say this to anybody’s face — I would much rather have somebody who drank and drank too much taking care of my child than I had somebody whose lifestyle is questionable around children. Because that ain’t the damn way that it’s supposed to be. You’ve got people out there that ­– I’m telling you, buddy, I don’t agree with some of the lifestyles that I see portrayed, and I don’t say anything because that’s the way they want to live. But I’m not gonna let my child be around it. I’m not gonna let two women stand up there and hold hands and let my child be aware of it. And I’m not gonna see them do it with two men neither. I’m not gonna do it, because that ain’t the way the world works.

That’s the sort of anti-gay bigotry you typically hear from Religious Right leaders, not elected officials. And how did Bullard get elected mayor when he apparently can’t string together enough words to tell a five-year-old, “That child has two mommies because they love each other”?

But here’s the brilliant thing. Even though South Carolina isn’t known for it’s support of LGBT rights — an amendment to ban gay marriage was passed by voters nearly a decade ago — the people of Latta overwhelmingly came to Moore’s defense. Not only that; they voted to kick the mayor out of office:

Within days of Moore’s firing, the town council passed a vote of confidence in her, demanding the mayor hire her back. They also set up an election that would strip the mayor of his power.

Moore, who played softball at Latta High School, walked up and down the streets for days before the vote, explaining her side of the story and calling for change. Last month, 69 percent of 475 voters approved of taking the mayor’s power away…

…

“Crystal is a good chief and she loves this town,” said Taylor, the councilman. “It made me proud of my town to see everybody come out for her the way they did.”

How amazing is that? Despite the support, Moore still has about $20,000 in legal fees to pay from her fight against the former mayor. There’s a fundraiser here if you’d like to contribute (it’s mentioned in a local newspaper’s article as well).

It’s wonderful to see competency and common sense win out over irrational hatred in the South. What’s more is that having a leader as beloved as Moore in the public eye is precisely what South Carolina needs to change hearts and minds. Maybe the people of the state will begin to reconsider the wisdom of their marriage ban.

(Thanks to Mark for the link)

The Most Ridiculous Religious Loophole You’ll Ever Hear About is the Subject of an FFRF Complaint

Here’s a religious ritual you may not be familiar with. Under Jewish law, on the Sabbath (Friday night to Saturday night), you’re not supposed to carry any of your possessions between private domains (like your home) and public domains (like outside your home). But what if you want to take your baby to synagogue? What if you want to carry your keys from inside your home to outside where your car is parked? You can’t do it. Jewish law forbids it.

But Orthodox Jews figured out a loophole. All they had to do was turn a “public” domain into a “private” one and the problem would be solved, and they accomplished this by creating an eruv (AY-roov).

(Original image via @lakefronteruv)

An eruv is essentially a gated community built using poles and string. You put up the poles all around a city, connect them with a string, and you’ve created a brand new giant public domain. Orthodox Jews can roam and carry items freely within that space, even on the Sabbath!

(We can have a separate debate over whether or not God sees through that little trick…)

But here’s the problem: In some communities, Orthodox Jews are building the eruv on public property. In some cases, they’re even tying the string directly on the government-owned utility poles. We have laws against that sort of thing and church/state separation proponents are finally speaking out against the eruvs:

“It’s not in the spirit of the deed that [the park] become a religious sanctuary,” [Mary Baker] says. She’s careful to point out that she has nothing against the Jewish faith. “I’m not in favor of crosses or crescents or Ten Commandments either. We need some faith-free zones in our lives.“

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is also weighing in against a particular eruv in Miami Beach, Florida:

[FFRF] has written a letter to the city demanding not only that the eruv in Pinetree Park be dismantled, but that all other public eruvs on the island be taken down.

“The religious significance of eruvin is unambiguous and indisputable,” FFRF staff attorney Andrew Seidel wrote yesterday. “They are objects which are significant only to some Jews as a means to obey religious laws that have no bearing on non-adherents. They have no meaning except as a visual, public communication of a purely religious concept for religious believers of a single faith. The City cannot allow such permanent religious displays to be erected on public land.”

It seems like a very simple principle: No religious group has the right to just randomly put up its symbols on government property. Just as we fight against Ten Commandments monuments at city halls, we should be fighting against these eruvs which have been erected on government property. It’s completely irrelevant that they might go unnoticed. The law applies to all groups, including Orthodox Jews, and the government has no right to give exemptions to one group but not others.

(via Tablet)