Atheists share diverse views about religious holiday displays in the State House

When we learned this month that Rep. James Lyons had successfully arranged once again to install a Christian nativity scene in the Massachusetts State House -- for four hours total or so -- we began a conversation in the Boston Atheists community:

As atheists, how does the placement of this religious display on governmental property make us feel? 

Well, there's no one answer for that. Over the course of dozens of messages in our community mailing list, numerous points of views were expressed, exploring issues of inclusion, freedom, expression, constitutionality, neighborliness, and other aspects of church-state relations. Since we want never to contribute to the view that atheism is a monolithic position, we are publishing the following list of some of those responses, ranging from mild approval, to indifference, to irritation, to outright disapprobation.

These responses have been lightly edited for clarity.

• a response of equanimity: "Honestly, this doesn't really bother me. So long as the Menorah [for example] is given the same consideration as the Nativity, I'm happy to celebrate all holidays of this season."
• a call for equal access: "While such a display obviously threatens the separation of church and state, I wouldn't mind too much if it were obvious that a Muslim, Jewish, or atheist display could have equal access.  If so, other groups should make a point of posting some message of their own, either simultaneous or during some holiday of their own."
• dragging in some stats: "I think it's worth pointing out that, according to Pew, only 33% of Massachusetts residents regard themselves as 'highly religious,' and only one-in-five attend services weekly. Also, 9% of the residents of the state are members of minority religions, and almost half of our residents say they are unsure about the existence of God. So I feel that, at the very least, the State House grounds should be open to nonreligious displays and those of other faiths. The stereotype that Boston is a predominantly Catholic town is outdated--the majority of residents are not religious at all."
• between all or none, he wants none: "Interestingly I belong to a synagogue here in metro west and our rabbi is opposed to the menorah in the center of our town.  Her take is that all religious symbols ultimately have no place in governmental or public places as they are inherently exclusive even if in the case of the menorah they are attempting to be inclusive. What about Diwali or Kwanzaa? There is no realistic way to recognize every religion so it is best to just leave it alone."
• cheering on the trees: "How does this make me feel?  Fearful, angry, and astonished. I strongly object to a Nativity Scene (or Menorah for that matter) in the MA State House.  Decorate with twinkly lights, red bows and conifers all you like, these are not religious symbols and have a mixed heritage. It seems blatantly unconstitutional, never mind completely insensitive to do this in the State House."
• displays belong outside: "Irritated is about the maximum amount of emotional energy I'm going to spend on this one one. Rep. Lyons is an elected official, and the State House is the seat of the Commonwealth's government; the First Amendment is really clear on this matter.  It's nice that other religions get some space so that the state isn't promoting one religion over another, but menorahs and nativity scenes are promotions of *a* religion, and don't belong in a governmental building.  I'm irritated that we have to keep having this conversation.  I once had a friend tell me that she wishes 'atheists weren't so in my face about it',  yet deists get a pass, apparently. Out on the Common, a public open space is a far better space for this type of display, and I actually enjoying seeing them there."
• another vote for no: "I have a Jewish heritage, but say no even to a menorah. All of these things are billboards for a belief system. I think all such should be kept off of public property."
• make room for more deities: "Religious symbols should have no place in a public space. The only place for a religious symbol is a private home or a place of worship, and there are a plenty of those around us. But if people are really okay with Nativity scene or a Menorah in a public space, I want a statue of a three-eyed ten-handed goddess piercing a half-human-half-buffalo with her trident."
• decrying privilege: "What bothers me is that Rep. Lyons seems to believe that his religion deserves special recognition by being put inside the State House while everyone else's are regulated to their spots on the Boston Common. This should offend every person who resides in Massachusetts, atheist or not."
• if any are allowed, all must be allowed: "It's inappropriate unless all or mostly all religious and non-religious viewpoints are represented. Democracy trumps theocracy."
• this isn't democracy: "This leaves me feeling fearful and angry.  I’m not astonished, though, as the separation of church and state, upon which this country was passionately and smartly founded, is constantly being tested by the majority of people in this country who do not understand that democracy does not work by pushing religious agendas. The folks 'running' this country right now have no idea what democracy even means. Putting a nativity scene in the MA State House only serves to confuse our purpose as a nation."
• frankly, outrage: "The display of the nativity scene by Rep. Lyons is an obvious and blatant disregard of the separation of religion and state. I don’t mind the many secular decorations that are associated with Christmas and the holidays but nativity scenes don’t belong in front of government institutions. The display is an endorsement of Christian religion."
• rejecting tall tales: "I'm upset not just with the one in the State House, but manger scenes anywhere I see them. I'm tired of the lies being pushed on me."
• let churches deal with this, so we can focus: "Every church has the full right to post as much religious propaganda as they want, but the State House does not have any religious affiliation at all, and that means I don’t want to see ANY religious decorations on it at all. In fact if they could stop sitting around wondering if snowflakes or crosses are appropriate to hang up, and just deal with the clusterf**k that is our government, I would be very happy. This debate over the right holiday aesthetic for the State House is literally the last priority right now. 
• an accusation of hypocrisy: "If Rep. Lyons were a real Christian and a real political leader, he would DONATE the nativity scene to a church or family who can’t afford their own."
• appreciating the decorations: "I'm okay with the display, personally; admittedly because I grew up where similar sights were common. Mind you, times change, and it is important to represent all belief systems in the public setting. Meaning, if you have this scene, you better include a menorah, and something for Ramadan, etc."
• a note on terminology: "I'm okay with calling a Christmas tree a Christmas tree.  If we agreed with the logic of renaming it a 'holiday tree', would Jews (like me) need to concede the menorah, and start calling it a 'holiday candle Holder'?"

Members of the press interesting in speaking with representatives of the Boston Atheists, or with any of the members of the community quoted here, are encouraged to contact the BA organizers by email.

Why Trinity Lutheran v. Comer means we have work to do

Today I put on my hat as chair of the Boston Atheists steering committee. Here follows my ninety seconds of soapboxing on the subject of today's SCOTUS decision.

If the government can't be trusted to recognized and defend the separation of church and state, secular communities, organizations and individuals are going to have to focus and redouble our efforts to make that separation relevant. We have to make the case that such a separation is in the interest of all persons living in our society; and we have to show people that political secularism is the necessary counterpart to social pluralism. Roll up those sleeves, folks; there's work to do.

A good analogy can be made to the displays on the courthouse lawn. SOCAS indicates that the government either allows ALL organizations representing a worldview stance -- for whatsoever flavor of theism or nontheism you can imagine -- to plant their sectarian displays on the lawn, or it refers all of them to private land, leaving the public space open, uncluttered by the symbols of doctrinal vanity and competition.

If SCOTUS rules that SOCAS means "ALL are accommodated" (rather than "NONE" or "ALL or NONE"), then as secularists we better make damn sure that:

1. The secular symbols we put on the lawn are the most awesome, vainglorious, stupendous and eye-catching possible; and that 
2. Symbols of ALL sectarian positions, so that no worldview, by dint of its majority status or gamesmanship, chokes them out. That puts atheists on the side of all religious minorities in this fight.

In terms of inclusion, atheists have to be on the side of radical inclusiveness (until the government comes around to defending SOCAS in a robust fashion.) In terms of operation, however, atheists should be motivated to win.

While we work to legally neutralize these threats to SOCAS, we are going to have to try to outcompete theistic orgs in terms of operational prowess. 

If there's a government grant that a religious organization is eligible for, there's no excuse for secular people not to step up and make sure our orgs are not just eligible to receive that funding, but are by far the most qualified. 

We could even view this situation in a positive light. If we're called to step up and provide community and social services on par with those provided by theistic orgs, and we can out-compete those orgs for government funding, we'd be pulling off an interesting trick: for we'd be denying money to groups whose doctrines help to the dangerous ideas of supernaturalism, Hey, maybe we should thank Gorsuch for lighting a fire under our backsides!

Furthermore, we'd be directing money through channels that are welcoming of ALL -- no dogmatic requirements to receive help; no profession of faith needed; no litmus tests of belief. I've heard too many stories about soup-for-sermons at soup kitchens, of LGBTQ homeless persons turned away from religious shelters because of anti-gay prejudice, and so on.

To close out this post, let's go back quickly to the courthouse lawn. On the other hand, if SCOTUS rules that the preferred interpretation of SOCAS is "NONE" (or "ALL OR NONE"), then... great! Celebration time! We can enjoy our public spaces, without the cacophany of sectarian messaging, and keep our wits about us for some future time when religious privilege once more tries to claim an advantage for itself.

Given today's ruling, however, we'd be smart to begin gearing up for an ALL fight.

The difference between our banner, and their nativity scene

We've just learned that the Thomas More Society, a notorious anti-choice law firm supporting unconstitutional policies that privilege their preferred sectarian religious views, was successful in bullying the staff of the Massachusetts State House to go against their better judgment and allow the display of a nativity scene in the State House, for one day only. It does not seem a coincidence that their display is being blessed and unveiled on the same day that members of the Boston Atheists are putting their own holiday display up -- not on the secular grounds of the State House, but in the shared public space of Boston Common, beside the traditional seasonal displays of other faith traditions.

For background on this story, see this Boston Herald article.

Compare the Thomas More Society's grinch-ish actions, with their legal threats, to our own Boston Common banner, as described in this press release we put out earlier this week.

This is not the first time the leaders of Boston's secular community have shown a greater understanding of the spirit of the season than some of their theistic counterparts; but really, this is no crisis. Rep. Lyons of Andover, for whatever reason, decided 2016 was a good time to pander to voters who want to see their sectarian views privileged in the secular space of the State House. We don't believe this shows good judgement, but neither do we wish to see him pilloried for a bad call. (The Thomas More Society lawyers, on the other hand, can keep their anti-social and unconstitutional agenda out of our great Commonwealth, thank you.)

If the good Representative feels he must pursue a similar action next year, we'll not oppose him with anything so divisive as a lawsuit. Instead, we'll look to him to support our organization's efforts to place a celebratory statue of the Satanic Baphomet in the State House in the same week, if even for a single day. The values represented by Baphomet are ones we can ALL celebrate, whatever our philosophical views: the importance of pluralism; the importance of rationalism; and the ever-present need for there to be always in society persons with the courage to speak truth to power, including and perhaps especially in the form of blasphemy.

These are values truly in keeping with the spirit of the season... especially when compared to tactics like the threat of lawsuits. (We're looking at you, Thomas More Society. You darn Scrooges.)

CBS Boston asks: Should we have religious monument in govt buildings?

Continuing the conversation started by the proposal to place a statue of Satan at Oklahoma's state capitol, the Facebook team at CBS Boston has asked a question:

Should commissioners approve the monument, or should religious monuments not be allowed at a government building?

Well, no.

The civic space should be equally accessible to all members of the community, since it is owned collectively by that community.

Philosophy and ethics are determinedly private matters, and cannot be readily translated into public language that we can all partake in. It isn't about removing contentious symbols that might offend some people; it is about making sure our government does its work in a language we can all speak. (See John Rawls for more about the distinction between private and public language.)

Here's an interesting thought: Why don't we think of the concrete absence in the public space of symbols that are religious or similarly "private" in nature, as a monument in itself? A monument that says something in its silence about our solemn shared commitment to a form of government in which persons of all and any creed can all participate equally.

(cross-posted from the Atheology blog)

Looking for Newton atheists!

From the Secular Coalition for Massachusetts:

There's an event coming up -- the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast -- that the SCMA would like to use as an occasion to talk with various civic leaders about inclusion and SOCAS. If you are a Newton resident who'd be willing to talk with the SCMA about participating in our effort to engage the Mayor's office over this issue, please let us know: massachusetts@secular.org.  

In light of the potential fallout from coming forward as an atheist representative or activist, let us assure you that discretion will be afforded you, as well as anonymity if you require it.

Letter re: town meeting prayer in Sandwich

This letter has just been emailed by Jane Logan to the Sandwich Board of Selectmen and Town Manager:

Selectmen and Women:

Starting the Town Meeting, or any official Town event, with an invocation / prayer is a violation of the separation of Church and State.

In a Supreme Court ruling Justice Stevens wrote " the delivery of a prayer (at a public event) has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Thomas Jefferson.

Citizens should not have to participate in a religious act to participate in Democracy.

Please uphold the separation of church and State and do not commence Town Meeting or any official Town event with a prayer.

I would appreciate a response as soon as possible prior to the May 2012 Town Meeting.

Tweets from the Cranston school committee meeting

What follows is the Twitter report that I sent from my seat last night in the Cranston High School East auditorium, as residents of Cranston for and against an appeal in the case of Ahlquist v. Cranston. I intend to write a fuller account of my impressions of the evening -- the flashes of good will, the disturbing spectacle of hostility -- but it was a long night and that will have to wait.

These run in chronological order, from early in the evening to about 11 PM:

• After 'they' sang God Bless America, 'we' sing America the Beautiful, are told to "GO HOME" #prayerbanner
• Class of '63 wants to take religious words off mural, rather than remove it #prayerbanner
• State rep wants appeal; because obviously majority of residents want it #prayerbanner
• State rep says decision will lead to other attacks on constitution #prayerbanner
• State rep says she's fought for rights... #prayerbanner
• Speaker says there a place for this mural, but not in the school #prayerbanner
• Speaker is being jeered for talking about being discriminated against #prayerbanner
• The vilification of atheists represents a lack of compassion #prayerbanner
• Speaker was booed for saying school is a community of learning... #prayerbanner
• Teacher says her classroom is not a temple... #prayerbanner
• Churchgoer says to love and accept others as they are #prayerbanner
• Churchgoer discourages cruelty, belittling, wonders: why the fuss? #prayerbanner
• Churchgoer says, fight violence in social media, instead of the mural #prayerbanner
• Speaker is sad this case didn't provoke critical, constructive discussion #prayerbanner
• Speaker asks, why not notice the district's accomplishments instead? #prayerbanner
• Speaker says... continue the discussion WITHOUT a legal battle #prayerbanner
• Resident admires the mural's values, but... it is Christian. #prayerbanner
• Catholic supports Jessica BECAUSE of history of religious oppression #prayerbanner
• Catholic says tax dollars should not support one religious view #prayerbanner
• Believer supports Jessica, in view of history's religious oppression #prayerbanner
• Resident sitting behind me is calling every speaker against the banner, sotto voce, a fecking 'hypocrite' #prayerbanner
• Speaker asks that this case be a chance to model adult behavior #prayerbanner
• Taxpayer, mother, says appeal makes no sense #prayerbanner
• Taxpayer, mother, says, devote attention to education, not appeal #prayerbanner
• Mother remembers prayer in school as coercive, confusing #prayerbanner
• Vet says, mural is not a govt. document, so allowable #prayerbanner
• Speaker reminds that we don't go to school to pray #prayerbanner
• Speaker reminds us that Dalai Lama is an atheist #prayerbanner
• Speaker says no appeal... conserve tax dollars #prayerbanner
• Resident says appeal, as someone has to take a stand #prayerbanner
• Teen invokes Roger Williams and religious tolerance #prayerbanner
• Teen asks, what's next, taking IGWT off money? #prayerbanner
• Speaker says progressive agenda is filth, evil, tragic #prayerbanner
• Speaker says the suit was cowardly #prayerbanner
• Student, a catholic, was shocked to learn of the suit #prayerbanner
• Student says this is about morals [and is adamant, rambling] #prayerbanner
• Teen doubts taxpayers want city to quit, tail between legs #prayerbanner
• Speaker says, supporters should fund appeal, not taxes #prayerbanner
• Speaker says appeal would snuff hope of fiscal health #prayerbanner
• Speaker says personal feelings beside the point #prayerbanner
• Father recalls daughter speaking against budget cuts #prayerbanner
• Father says, we can't even spend $1k on trash bags! #prayerbanner
• Father says, do not gamble with my kids' education #prayerbanner
• Speaker thinks SCOTUS ignores 200 years of US history? #prayerbanner
• Speaker: they're pushing our god out of public life! #prayerbanner
• Speaker somehow equating this case with communism #prayerbanner
• Speaker feels ill at spectacle of divisiveness #prayerbanner
• Business owner says, save school money for education #prayerbanner
• Resident says mural does not promote a religious belief! #prayerbanner
• Speaker says prayers need not be religious, nor amen #prayerbanner
• Speaker warns of traditions being torn down #prayerbanner
• Atheist being booed for being atheist #prayerbanner
• Atheist to give $500 to preserve banner outside school #prayerbanner
• Speaker asks if supporters would support an Allah mural #prayerbanner
• Financial planner says appeal makes no fiscal sense #prayerbanner
• Resident says RW would find mural violation of SOCAS #prayerbanner
• Speaker asks if they can appeal figure of $173k #prayerbanner
• Priest says, I never viewed it as a prayer #prayerbanner
• Teen teebower says, I am a servant of god #prayerbanner
• Classmate says JA was never bullied #prayerbanner
• Classmate says, this is a CHRISTIAN community #prayerbanner
• Mother says the Ahlquists are wasting the school's money #prayerbanner
• Resident says, appeal, don't surrender our rights #prayerbanner
• While other speak, Chris Young is signing up more pro-appeal folks, to keep out-of-towners away from mic #prayerbanner
• Speaker says ours is a DIVERSE nation, not Christian #prayerbanner
• Mother says her kids' freedom of speech ignored #prayerbanner
• Mother worried US on slippery slope, losing freedoms #prayerbanner
• Speaker notes string of attacks on religion in US #prayerbanner
• Speaker invokes Obamaplot, MLK, looming endtimes #prayerbanner
• Conspiracy theorist gets rousing applause #prayerbanner
• Speaker asks if JA changes her mind, can mural stay? #prayerbanner
• Speaker [not a linguist] observes that "Amen" is not religious -- it's just an 'affirmation'! #prayerbanner
• Speaker says mural is a poem, TITLED "School Prayer" #prayerbanner
• Speaker thinks suit came from JA's sense of entitlement #prayerbanner
• Speaker defines 'artifact', says mural is one #prayerbanner
• Speaker says if mural goes, so should museum artifacts #prayerbanner
• Speaker says victor gets the spoils, to write history #prayerbanner
• Mother says HER mother would support an appeal #prayerbanner
• Wistful speaker remembers school prayer #prayerbanner
• Alumna of '63 says when JFK died we said the creed, not prayer #prayerbanner
• Man sitting in front of me explains why he wants an appeal: America is in a sorry state #prayerbanner
• Pastor says, we choose the traditions we honor #prayerbanner
• Pastor says RI first place to have religious liberty #prayerbanner
• Pastor says prayer not a govt. matter #prayerbanner
• Speaker says post a disclaimer or take it down #prayerbanner
• Speaker offended by Christian patriarchy #prayerbanner
• Unassuming woman sitting next to me has filled seven notebook pages with angry words about atheists #prayerbanner
• Speaker critical of Catholicism booed loudly #prayerbanner
• Speaker recalls only Hanukah lesson from school #prayerbanner
• Father says, hey, no one forced to recite prayer #prayerbanner
• School committee members giving their yeas, nays... #prayerbanner
• Lawyer with 24 years of experience says, this is a winnable case [displays dubious legal acumen] #prayerbanner
• District executive is "first and foremost a teacher", yet will gamble with $500k of student funding #prayerbanner
• Committee member supports a "minority of one", is booed #prayerbanner
• Committee member says that for all the funds people have said is available, "not one dime" has been given #prayerbanner
• Committee member (Brahe bless her) asks, where were donations when we cut music? #prayerbanner
• The final vote, to cacophony of boos, is against appeal #prayerbanner
• Yet the pro-appeal folks don't seem fazed; perhaps the vote reinforces their self-image as victims? #prayerbanner
• At Dunkin Donuts rally point after the decision, Ahlquist dad wary of "goons"; JA just wants a donut #prayerbanner
• I agree with James Croft -- let's raise money to cover the city's legal costs http://bit.ly/wb4vo0 #prayerbanner

Tell your rep: Support SOCAS and Vote No on "In God We Trust"

The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee will vote today on whether to reaffirm "In God We Trust" as the national motto of the United States, and encourage its public display in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions. The text of the resolution says in part, "... in times of national challenge or tragedy, the people of the United States have turned to God as their source for sustenance, protection, wisdom, strength, and direction." Some Americans have found in their religion the strength to bear up against difficult times; others have found reason in their religion to deny medical care to children, to commit murder, to collude with terrorism, to deny other Americans their equal part of civil liberty, and other anti-social behavior.

Congressman Randy Forbes (R-VA) is behind this resolution -- it may be said that he's leading the current legislative effort to confuse church and state. He and 64 co-sponsors (nearly all Republicans -- see list below) are hoping that the resolution's passage will encourage public display of "In God We Trust" in public schools and buildings -- a wholly unsavory practice that establishes one religious perspective (that of theism) as official, national, and patriotic, and promotes the notion that another religious perspective (that of atheism) is subversive, elitist, and un-American. Forbes is known for his promotion of Judeo-Christian doctrines and values, and for equating theism with patriotism e.g. "Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first, the most basic expression of Americanism."

The same bill failed last year -- can we do it again? How excellent it would be good if a significant portion of the large and growing population of secular Americans, would come forward and ask their Congresspeople to represent them just as well as their theistic neighbors, by voting against this resolution.

Congressman Forbes recently told Politico, "to a lot of people, the fact that this country was built on faith, the fact that faith is important, 'In God We Trust' is important." Of course, to a lot of people, that sounds like balderdash. This country was built on a Constitution, and according to that Constitution, the government use its authority to promote any position on the questions of religion, theistic or atheistic.

On this subject, Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State challenges the notion that efforts to change the national motto are motivated by anything other than the intention to adopt a slogan that represents ALL Americans. "No organization or group of graffiti artists is going around trying to cover up" the motto, Lynn told CNN, "the motto should be 'In God, or in no God, or in multiple gods we trust.'"

The text and status of House Continuing Resolution 13 can be found online at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:hc13:.

AN EASY WAY TO MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD
Americans United has a webform which will allow you to instantly contact your Congressperson, at http://action.au.org/au/issues/alert/?alertid=35875506.


The following U.S. Representatives have co-sponsored Randy Forbes' bill to reaffirm the national motto. Is your rep listed below? If so, please call 202-224-3121 today and say, "I'd like you to reconsider your co-sponsorship of House Continuing Resolution 13. The national motto 'In God We Trust' is a statement of religious belief, contrary to the letter and spirit of the First Amendment, and fails to adequately represent the diversity of views present in America. I want you to represent my interests, and the interests of all your constituents, by not affirming a divisive national motto."

CO-SPONSORS of "IN GOD WE TRUST"

• Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 3/3/2011
• Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 3/3/2011
• Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 3/16/2011
• Rep Black, Diane [TN-6] - 3/3/2011
• Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] - 2/11/2011
• Rep Canseco, Francisco "Quico" [TX-23] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] - 2/11/2011
• Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Ellmers, Renee L. [NC-2] - 2/16/2011
• Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 3/16/2011
• Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] - 3/16/2011
• Rep Griffith, H. Morgan [VA-9] - 2/16/2011
• Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 3/16/2011
• Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] - 3/3/2011
• Rep Huizenga, Bill [MI-2] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Jenkins, Lynn [KS-2] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 1/26/2011
• Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 2/28/2011
• Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 3/16/2011
• Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 2/11/2011
• Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 3/16/2011
• Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 2/16/2011
• Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 3/16/2011
• Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] - 2/16/2011
• Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 3/16/2011
• Rep Pompeo, Mike [KS-4] - 2/17/2011
• Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV-3] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Ross, Dennis [FL-12] - 2/8/2011
• Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] - 2/8/2011
• Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] - 2/8/2011
• Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Young, Don [AK] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Young, Todd C. [IN-9] - 3/3/2011

Is your Congressman listed above? If so, please call 202-224-3121 and encourage him or her to defend freedom of conscience and the separation of church of state, by voting against this resolution.

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD
Use this webform, http://action.au.org/au/issues/alert/?alertid=35875506, to instantly contact your Congressperson.

NB: NB: A petition campaign to support this resolution is being led by Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt. More about him at http://blog.au.org/2009/04/24/naval-maneuvers-exchaplain-admits-hes-not-all-he-appeared-to-be (and elsewhere online).

[Please circulate.]

Free Thought Radio

One of my favorite weekly podcasts to listen to regularly is produced by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). The show is hosted by co-presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor.

Last week's show was really interesting; the discussion concerned Mitch Kahle, a SOCAS activist from Hawaii, . Click here to hear (in mp3 format) how he persuaded the Hawaiian senate to end prayer in their assembly.
This episode also focuses in on on prayers taking place during sessions of the Wisconsin State Assembly. They ask Jesus for guidance, which is unconstitutional, in addition to being a little silly.

What I appreciate most about the FFRF is its dedicated focus on the separation of church and state. Ours is a secular government, and in no way, shape or form should any religion (or absence of religion) be endorsed by our government. This principle acts to protect all citizens, including those who profess religious belief.