Below are the 10 most recent journal entries recorded in The Wall of Separation's LiveJournal:

Monday, June 16th, 2008
4:44 pm	Findlay’s Fishy Field Trip: Ohio Public School Officials Trumpet Gideons’ Bibles http://blog.au.org/2008/06/16/findlays-fishy-field-trip-ohio-public-school-officials-trumpet-gideons-bibles/   Hey, kids, it’s time to go pick up your Bibles! That was the implicit message to fifth-grade students at five Findlay, Ohio, elementary schools. Students took a field trip during school hours to pick up Bibles being handed out off campus by Gideons International, the Associated Press has reported.  The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio has since intervened, writing a letter to the public school district explaining why this is unconstitutional. “Groups such as Gideons International can distribute literature on public sidewalks,” the ACLU said, “but it infringes on the First Amendment rights of every student to receive such information while on school time, regardless of whether it is in or out of the school building.”  Many people in Findlay were outraged that anyone would want to put a stop to this practice, which has been going on for at least 15 years, the school’s superintendent told the local affiliate of ABC news. “From my perspective, only good could come out of it,” one parent told the news channel. Another parent said, “To me I don’t think it’s a big deal.”  The Gideon Bible handout seems a little redundant. Most people in town already own Bibles, a recent high school graduate told the Scene. “Findlay is already super Christian to begin with,” she said. “Everyone in town already owns a Bible — or six. In fact, I have more Bibles than I do voice messages.”  This just furthers the point that the school is unnecessarily singling out the few students who are not Christian. One Muslim parent complained to the school district because her daughter felt pressured to take a Bible, the Scene reported.   Thankfully, not everyone in Findlay wants the school-promoted Bible practice to continue. An editorial in Findlay’s local newspaper probably put it best:    “Rather than worrying about what separation of church and state denies them, Christians should remember what this interpretation of the Constitution secures for them: the right of all to worship (or not) wherever and however they please, and raise their children as they see fit.”   Maybe next time the field trip should be for students, parents and school administrators to pick up a copy of our Constitution. (Comment on this)
Friday, June 6th, 2008
3:21 pm	Holy War In California?: Religious Poster Controversy Sparks Vandalism In God’s Name http://blog.au.org/2008/06/06/holy-war-in-california-religious-poster-controversy-sparks-vandalism-in-gods-name/ Religious Right leaders and their followers often assert that it’s no big deal when the government endorses religion in a general way. “In God We Trust” appears on our money, and “under God” was slipped into the Pledge of Allegiance. It’s a generic endorsement of religion, so no harm done, right? Recent events in California indicate that it’s not that simple. Bakersfield City Councilwoman Jacquie Sullivan has started a national campaign to persuade local governments and public schools to post “In God We Trust” signs in a conspicuous place. The drive has sparked a surprising amount of discord. In Lancaster, Calif., a woman who protested the council’s unanimous vote to post an “In God We Trust” sign had her house vandalized. Debbie Phillips had publicly opposed the move at two open meetings. She woke up May 29 to find the words “In God We Trust or?” scrawled in shoe polish in foot-high letters across two windows and a sliding-glass door. “People should be able to voice their opinion at City Hall without worrying about repercussions,” Phillips told the Los Angeles Daily News. “It’s mild vandalism, but it’s more damage to the psyche.” In Fountain Valley, Calif., the proposal divided the city council. “People do not come here for the purpose of practicing their faith, although they are free to do so if they wish,” Councilwoman Cheryl Brothers said. “I believe that City Hall is where we do government’s business in everyone’s name.” Stephanie Campbell, president of the Orange County chapter of Americans United, had urged the council to vote down the proposal, remarking, “This is not a house of worship; this is a house of democracy.” The council voted 3-2 against posting a sign, but the two members who supported it said they may try again later. One of them, Mayor John Collins, made an unusual argument about “In God We Trust,” telling the Orange County Register, “I don’t consider it to be theology professing.” I’ve heard similar arguments made elsewhere. “In God We Trust,” we are told, isn’t about religion. It’s about patriotism. Even some courts have bought into this, asserting that the government use of “In God We Trust” is “ceremonial deism” that, over time, loses its religious significance. What nonsense. These signs state that community trusts in a deity. How is that not religious? Furthermore, it’s an endorsement of a certain type of religion – monotheism. The communities adopting these signs are stating that they trust in God, not gods or no god. If the signs are merely meant to promote patriotism, does that mean polytheists and atheists can’t be patriotic? Let’s extend the argument a little further: a statement that we “trust” in God implies that there is some value to this position. If we place our trust in God, perhaps God will reward or protect us. This principle is common in certain forms of Christianity but is not shared by all religions. The early Deists, for example, believed in a God who created the universe but then stepped away from it and did not intervene in the affairs of humankind. To them, there was no point in publicly announcing trust in God, as there was nothing to be gained. Sullivan told the San Francisco Chronicle back in 2002 that she can’t understand why some people get upset over her crusade. “To me, ‘In God We Trust’ is our official national motto, and God is all-inclusive of everyone,” she said. This narrow perspective is all too common among the Religious Right. A moment’s thought should demonstrate that generic endorsements of God do not include Americans who believe in many gods, don’t believe in God at all or define God in a non-traditional way. They are also offensive to some believers who don’t like to see these pathetic attempts to secularize God. Municipal governments face a lot of responsibilities. There are roads to repair, public schools to run, libraries to fund and a host of development issues. Maybe it’s time local governments in California and elsewhere focused on these issues and leave the theological matters – such as whether there is a God or gods and whether we should announce trust in him/her/it/they – to houses of worship and debating societies. P.S. It’s worth remembering that “In God We Trust” is the new kid on the block and was adopted in 1954. The United States’ original motto, “E Pluribus Unum” (”Out of Many, One”) really does include everyone. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, June 4th, 2008
1:59 pm	‘Academic Freedom’ Fraud: Louisiana Bill Opens Door To Creationism In The Classroom http://blog.au.org/2008/06/04/academic-freedom-fraud-louisiana-bill-opens-door-to-creationism-in-the-classroom/   The New York Times reported Monday that the climate in Louisiana is “ripe” to enact the Religious Right agenda. The Times said Gov. Bobby Jindal is “seen as practically one of the family” at the offices of the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), a fundamentalist group that is finding new levels of power in a state where the governor and the legislature are sympathetic to infringements on church-state separation.   The LFF is pushing hard in Baton Rouge for a measure that would undercut instruction about evolution in the state’s public schools. Senate Bill 733 would allow teachers to use “supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials” to teach not only evolution but also other theories on the origins of life. After being passed by the Senate and the House Education Committee, the bill goes for a vote any day now on the House floor.   This “academic freedom” bill – and measures like it in other states — are key pieces to the Religious Right agenda, as I have learned during my first week here at Americans United. I recently joined the staff as a communications associate, and my first task is to write a story for Church & State on the recent surge in these measures in state legislatures. The Louisiana bill, known among its proponents as the “Science Education Act,” was modeled after language drafted by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle, Wash.-based think tank that promotes “intelligent design,” the latest variant of creationism.   Though the measure claims only scientific theories will be taught, State Senator Ben Nevers, who introduced the bill, supports the Louisiana Family Forum’s belief that “scientific data” related to creationism should be discussed along with evolution. I don’t know what “scientific data” he is referring to, and it is quite clear that Nevers’ “science” is founded on religious belief. As Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn put it, “This bill isn’t about improving education in Louisiana; it’s about sneaking religion into the science classroom.”  Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported on “academic freedom” bills and accompanying the story was a poll asking readers whether they would be upset if public schools taught creationism. Seventy-six percent of respondents answered “no.”    I first wondered if those who answered this poll really understand the First Amendment, and if they do, if they know that creationism is a religious belief not based on science. Courts have found that anti-evolution arguments “distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge.”  Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). That’s a finding that Louisiana legislators should take to heart. When SB 733 comes to the floor, House members should recall that public schools are supposed to offer science classes, not religious indoctrination. The U.S. Constitution demands it.  (Comment on this)
Tuesday, June 17th, 2008
4:43 pm	Unhappy Father’s Day: FRC Says Same-Sex Marriage In California Threatens Dads’ Annual Celebration http://blog.au.org/2008/06/17/unhappy-fathers-day-frc-says-samesex-marriage-in-california-threatens-dads-annual-celebration/ Sunday was Father’s Day. Like millions of men all over the country, I enjoyed a little extra attention from my family. I got cards from my daughter and son, and my wife made one of my favorite meals, topping it off with her sinfully decadent coconut cake. Alas, this domestic bliss will soon be a thing of the past. The Family Research Council (FRC) has informed us that this could be the last Father’s Day ever. Why? Because same-sex couples are allowed to marry in California! I know; it doesn’t make any sense to me either. Yet there it was in newspaper ads all over California. As The Washington Post reported, “This past weekend, the Family Research Council ran ads in California newspapers declaring, ‘Beginning Monday judges are removing the word husband from California marriage certificates. The next step will be to remove the term father from birth certificates. Enjoy this Father’s Day….It might be your last.’” (By the way, the FRC’s claim about marriage certificates is, of course, not true. They used to refer to “bride” and “groom.” Now they say “Party A” and “Party B.” Big deal.) Why must these Religious Right organizations always reach for the most hysterical and lurid rhetoric they can find? Don’t they realize it makes them look foolish? Try as I might, I have yet to figure out how the language on a marriage certificate of a same-sex couple in California (or indeed any state) could possibly affect my status as a father or shut down Father’s Day. Groups like the FRC employ the most incredibly lame arguments imaginable against same-sex marriage. They are constantly telling us, for example, that churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples or that expanding gay rights generally means churches will be required to hire gays or admit them as members. Not as long as we have the First Amendment. A house of worship is free to choose which couples it will marry. Protestants have no right to demand marriage in a Catholic church. Nor can a church that employs only male clergy be required to hire women. Churches also remain free to expel any member for any reason. The FRC’s claims are scare tactics, pure and simple – and the fact that the organization constantly resorts to them is further proof of how weak its arguments are. I challenge the FRC and other Religious Right groups to come up with one good, secular reason against same-sex marriage. I don’t think they can do it. Some don’t even try. Recently, an ultra-conservative Roman Catholic group called the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) placed a two-page ad in The New York Times blasting same-sex marriage. TFP cited several Catholic theologians and papal decrees against the practice. That’s nice – and it might have some relevance if this were medieval France. But it’s modern-day America, and while I’m perfectly happy to let the pope issue all of the decrees he wants, his interpretation of Catholic dogma simply cannot be the basis for U.S. laws. Nor can a narrow interpretation of the Bible offered by James Dobson and his pals. So how about it, FRC? All I want is one solid secular reason why same-sex marriage should be banned. And don’t try to give me that “marriage-is-about-raising-children” line. Many couples marry and never have children, either because that is their choice or an inability to conceive. (Plus, plenty of gay couples raise children.) Although it has been adopted by some courts, that argument is absurd. You must do better. One solid secular reason is all I want. I’m waiting. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, June 11th, 2008
3:08 pm	No Joy In Idaho: Nampa Library Board Pulls Sex Ed Books From Shelves http://blog.au.org/2008/06/11/no-joy-in-idaho-nampa-library-board-pulls-sex-ed-books-from-shelves/ An Idaho public library has decided to permanently remove two sex education books from its shelves after complaints from religious activists, the Idaho Statesman reported last week. The library board brought the issue to a vote after the director of a Religious Right group, Youth 4 Revolution, requested the books’ removal. The New Joy of Sex and The Joy of Gay Sex will be taken off the shelves (the books were already placed higher on the shelves and out of the way of children) and only accessible upon request. Children under the age of 18 will need parental approval to check out the books. The removal of these books has caused quite the debate among library board members and the community over the years. The board has voted on the issue four times in the past two years, initially rejecting the censorship request unanimously in 2006. The mayor appointed three new board members since then, and all voted in favor of removal. At a previous board meeting in March, when the board made a temporary vote on the issue, 20 people signed up to speak for the removal, and 16 signed up to support keeping the books, reported the Idaho Press-Tribune.   Those who opposed removal argued that removing the books amounted to censorship and went against the purpose of a public library. Our courts have held that the First Amendment protects the right to receive information and the right to know. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumers Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976). Stripping a book from a community’s public library is taking away this right. Even in school libraries, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided against removal of library books once they are already on the shelf. School board members cannot vote to remove a book simply because it goes against their religious beliefs or they do not like the ideas displayed in the book. Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 868 (1982)(plurality). Religious Right activists are gleeful about the Nampa library board’s action.  On the Youth 4 Revolution web site, a statement says, “This is a huge victory for the community of Nampa, and for families across the state of Idaho — and a reminder to Christians that when we are willing to take a stand for what is right– we can have Victory, through the power of God and to His glory!” But that statement raises important church-state issues. Are public libraries supposed to provide only books that meet the narrow criteria of fundamentalist Christians? I don’t think so. Librarians carefully select books to add to the community’s collection. Just because down the road someone finds a book offensive or “inappropriate” does not mean the book has no value. Parents can shield their children from whatever ideas and images they like. But that’s a responsibility of the parent, not the public library.  If public libraries start clearing their shelves based on requests from religious activist groups, it makes me wonder what would even be left on the shelves besides the Bible.  (Comment on this)
Tuesday, June 10th, 2008
4:44 pm	Novel Idea: Ralph Reed Reinvents Himself As A Writer Of Fiction http://blog.au.org/2008/06/10/novel-idea-ralph-reed-reinvents-himself-as-a-writer-of-fiction/ When we last heard from Ralph Reed, the former Christian Coalition executive director turned political consultant was running for lieutenant governor of Georgia. Ralph had it all planned – four years in the lieutenant governor’s office, then governor. After that, he could run for U.S. Senate or maybe even seek the White House. The political road ahead looked smooth for TV preacher Pat Robertson’s former front man. But sometimes unseen potholes force a change of course. In Reed’s case, the pothole was named “Jack Abramoff.” Reed had worked alongside the disgraced lobbyist, and during the campaign, a series of embarrassing e-mails surfaced. (My favorite was the charming 1998 message in which Reed wrote to Abramoff, “I need to start humping in corporate accounts. I’m counting on you to help me with some contacts.”) It was quite a mess. And Reed, who had been riding high in the polls, crashed and burned. After a public opinion survey was released showing Reed dragging down the entire Republican ticket in the state, GOP leaders quickly lost interest in his candidacy. On primary election day, Georgia State Sen. Casey Cagle trounced Reed by 12 points and is now lieutenant governor. His political hopes dashed, Reed has embarked on a new career path – as a novelist. Reed’s first work of fiction, Dark Horse, was released last week. It is described as a political thriller about an independent candidate seeking the White House. Actually, I’m hesitant to call Dark Horse Reed’s first work of fiction. I remember the glory days of the Christian Coalition when Ralph claimed the organization had two million members. Americans United used postal records to prove the group’s membership was never above 415,000 and a good bit lower in many years. In another instance, Reed arranged for Christian Coalition employees to play a type of leapfrog, moving from office to office so a visiting television crew would get the impression of a workplace bustling with activity. He’s nothing if not creative. But Reed’s greatest work of fiction had to be the “voter guides” cranked out every election year by the Christian Coalition. The guides were always stacked to make the Coalition’s favored candidates (always right-wing Republicans) look like saints and their opponents like sinners. It took some serious creative license to pull that off in some cases, but Reed always came through. The guides were supposedly “non-partisan,” but that was a joke. They were essentially GOP campaign material. In fact, Reed got his first batch of guides into print with a $64,000 grant from the Republican Senatorial Committee. At a closed-door meeting of Coalition activists in 1991, Reed boasted that Jesse Helms had called Robertson in 1990 and asked for help in a tough reelection campaign. Robertson subsequently instructed Reed to use the guides to help Helms. When the Federal Election Commission later raised questions about the matter, Reed told reporters he had no memory of Helms asking Robertson for help. Reed’s book has been lauded by right-wing luminaries like Sean Hannity and Robert Novack. Karl Rove raves, “You won’t be able to put it down.” As of today, it’s ranked about 5,000 on Amazon.com, but I noted that only one person has bothered to review it. Reed’s not exactly doing an extensive book tour, either. His Web site lists two appearances in Georgia, one of which was last month. (On the site, you can watch a You Tube video of a smiling Reed plugging the book. He still looks like a frat boy. Reed and I are about the same age, and I have to wonder how he does that. Is there a painting of him in some attic somewhere aging instead?) In a way, this new career move is the right one for Reed. Writers of fiction get to create their own worlds and make up whatever story they like. It makes sense, because we all know telling the truth was never Reed’s strong suit. (Comment on this)
Monday, June 9th, 2008
6:49 pm	Hallelujah For Henry!: Institute Poll Shows Americans Oppose Pulpit Partisanship http://blog.au.org/2008/06/09/hallelujah-for-henry-institute-poll-shows-americans-oppose-pulpit-partisanship/ Today the Paul B. Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics released its National Survey on Religion and Public Life. The poll gauged the attitudes of 3,002 Americans, belonging to 18 different religious groupings, about their political attitudes, affiliations and preferences. Researchers from the Calvin College-based Institute identified respondents as members of a particular faith community and then asked a series of questions concerning issues of public policy. Participants were also asked to identify the presidential candidate they are most likely to support in the general election. The conclusions of the national survey were largely unsurprising. Faith will continue to play a significant role in the political landscape through this year’s election, and congregants have a tendency to vote in a similar fashion to other traditionalists, centrists or modernists, regardless of denomination. Director of the Henry Institute and study leader Corwin E. Smidt spoke at the National Press Club this morning and focused attention on the attitudinal shifts of mainline Protestants and Evangelicals. According to the study, mainline Protestants in 2008 have moved away from the GOP and are now more likely to self-identify as Democrats (46 percent) as opposed to Republicans (37 percent). Evangelical Protestants, however, have been moving in the opposite direction. They favored the Republican Party over the Democratic Party 48 percent to 32 percent in 1992, but now lean Republican 54 percent to 25 percent. While the statistics, similar to those from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life U.S. Religious Landscape Survey of 2007, seem to be generally indicative of 2008 voting patterns like those of 2004, one question raised an issue of particular importance to advocates of church-state separation. The Henry Institute asked survey participants whether clergy should endorse political candidates from the pulpit. A majority of Americans, across the board, found the practice to be inappropriate. Fifty-seven percent said clergy should not “be permitted to endorse political candidates during worship services.” Only 28 percent said they should (with 15 percent offering no opinion). Among Evangelicals, 55 percent opposed pulpit partisanship, while only 29 supported it. Among Catholics, the figures were even farther apart, with 66 percent taking a stand against church electioneering and only 23 percent supporting it. With the Alliance Defense Fund and other Religious Right groups pressing clergy to violate federal tax law and endorse candidates from the pulpit, it’s good to know the American public won’t say amen to that reckless scheme. (Comment on this)
Thursday, June 5th, 2008
5:07 pm	‘Real’ Bigotry: Religious Right Appeals For ‘Real Christian’ Veep Nominee http://blog.au.org/2008/06/05/real-bigotry-religious-right-appeals-for-real-christian-veep-nominee/ Religion has played a large — and largely unfortunate — role in the presidential race so far. Reporters have grilled candidates on their sins, their prayers and their personal beliefs about God. The candidates, in turn, have wooed — and then often spurned — religious leaders who turn out to be too incendiary for the average American voter. It’s been quite an unholy mess! But apparently some Religious Right forces want to pour a little gasoline on the fire. A group called the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CAC) is circulating a petition demanding that the presidential candidates choose a “Real Christian” as their running mates. In an e-mail last Tuesday, CAC President and CEO Gary Cass insisted, “The three major presidential candidates, Democrats Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Republican John McCain have presented Christian voters with a vexing problem for Christians.  Both Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton have declared they are Christians, yet based on their votes, both have consistently demonstrated a failure to support the values and policy positions important to Christians.  While Mr. McCain proclaims support for traditional Christian values and morality, he has chosen to not discuss his own religious beliefs.” Cass has a solution to this “vexing problem.” He wants the candidates to select a “Real Christian” as their vice presidential nominees. “What qualifications are embodied in a truly Christian candidate for the Vice Presidency?,” Cass asks. “Quite simply, the candidate will demonstrate actions and hold the beliefs personified by all of us who proclaim the name of Jesus Christ as Savior: the need to be re-born in Christ and the affirmation of historic Christianity, having a demonstrable and proven record of support for traditional Christian morality.” By “traditional Christian morality,” Cass surely must mean someone who helps orphans and widows, gives food to the hungry, comforts the sick and afflicted and visits those in prison, right? Sorry. He has other criteria in mind. Try support for “traditional marriage” (no gay people need apply) and the “right to life” (no abortions for any reason from the moment of conception til birth). I doubt if any of the three candidates will pay much attention to Cass’s gambit. He moved to the Commission after his gig with the D. James Kennedy’s mega-bucks Center for Reclaiming America for Christ fell through. The petition is largely a publicity and fund-raising stunt. (As a tax-exempt group, is the Commission violating federal tax law by panning the current presidential candidates and seeking to influence the selection of their vice presidential candidates? Just asking.) But Cass’s appeal is important in one way: it serves as a blunt reminder that the Religious Right remains as determined as ever to usher in a fundamentalist Christian theocracy in America. Most Religious Right leaders are too savvy to make such blatant appeals to religious bigotry, but Cass lays out the full ugly agenda for all to see. You hear a lot of media loose talk about how moderate evangelicals are these days. And it’s true that some of them are. (They always have been; the media just didn’t pay attention in the past.) But the Religious Right’s big-money operations have the same goal as always: an America where their narrow version of Christianity is the law of the land. They want all public officials to be committed not only to their theocratic political agenda, but also to profess allegiance to their fundamentalist theology. It isn’t technically a violation of Article VI of the Constitution for Cass and Company to call for this kind of religious test for public office. That constitutional provision only forbids government to impose religious qualifications. But the Cass appeal certainly violates the spirit of the Constitution and the expansive vision of our nation’s founders. That’s bad enough. (Comment on this)
Thursday, June 12th, 2008
4:22 pm	Minnesota (Not So) Nice: Partisan Pastor Claims Right To Violate Federal Tax Law http://blog.au.org/2008/06/12/minnesota-not-so-nice-partisan-pastor-claims-right-to-violate-federal-tax-law/ Yesterday Americans United asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate a Warroad, Minn., church whose pastor told congregants in a sermon that no Christian can vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune picked up on the story today. Reporter Pat Doyle interviewed Pastor Gus Booth of Warroad Community Church, and the paper reprinted the entire text of Booth’s May 18 sermon. Booth is unapologetic about what he did. He insists he has a free-speech right to engage in pulpit-based electioneering and said, “If we lost it (tax-exemption), then so be it.” This isn’t surprising, since Booth essentially taunted AU into reporting him. In a June 3 e-mail to AU, Booth sent us a story about his sermon that appeared in the Warroad Pioneer. He wrote, “As you can see from the attached newspaper article, I specifically made recommendations as to who a Christian should vote for. I have read in the past about how you have a campaign to intimidate churches into silence when it comes to speaking about candidates for office. I am letting you know that I will not be intimidated into silence when I believe that God wants me to address the great moral issues of the day, including who will be our next national leader.” Booth is a little confused. Americans United is not trying to “intimidate” anyone. We just want pastors to follow the law. The Internal Revenue Code states that all non-profit, 501(c)(3) organizations, religious and secular, must refrain from intervening in elections by endorsing or opposing candidates. Exemption from paying taxes is a valuable benefit, and the “no politicking” rule is one of the conditions that must be met to get it. It’s not too much to ask. It looks like Booth clearly violated the law. Booth, who by the way is a delegate to the Republican National Convention this year, is the top official of his church. His salary is paid by the tax-exempt donations of congregation. When he steps into his tax-exempt pulpit, he is a church official speaking on behalf of his tax-exempt organization. During his sermon he stated, “There is no middle ground in this election. If you are a Christian, you cannot support a candidate like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for President because he/she stands opposite of every one of the Biblical mandates we have addressed today. I urge you, when you enter that voting booth, to not vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or candidates like him/her that support and encourage activities our Lord condemns in the strongest terms.” On Tuesday, I sat in on a one-hour conference call sponsored by the IRS for tax attorneys and non-profit representatives on the issue of political activity. The IRS representatives who spoke once again made it clear that the tax agency takes complaints of breaches of the law seriously and that egregious violations can result in revocation of tax-exempt status. The IRS has established a special project – the Political Activity Compliance Initiative – to ensure that the law is followed. Each week, three career IRS employees meet to discuss this issue and look over complaints that have been received. The IRS is so concerned about unlawful politicking by non-profits that this year it plans to examine candidate Federal Election Commission filings to make sure non-profits are not unlawfully donating funds to campaigns. The law is clear, and the IRS intends to enforce it. It is time for Pastor Booth and people who think like him to either obey our nation’s laws or surrender their tax-exempt status. (Comment on this)
Friday, June 13th, 2008
4:28 pm	The Sky Is Falling!: Scientists, Educators And Civil Liberties Activists Rightly Sound Alarm About L http://blog.au.org/2008/06/13/the-sky-is-falling-scientists-educators-and-civil-liberties-activists-rightly-sound-alarm-about-la-legislation/ On Wednesday, with just two weeks left in the legislative session, the Louisiana House of Representatives approved SB 733, a bill intended to facilitate the teaching of creationism in public schools. The Rev. Barry W. Lynn promptly responded, calling the proposed law an “embarrassment” and guaranteeing legal action if the measure is used “to promote religion in Louisiana public schools.” Americans United for Separation of Church and State, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Center for Science Education, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers and the new grassroots Louisiana Coalition for Science, decry the legislation as a poorly disguised attempt to bring creationism and its latest variant “intelligent design” (ID), into the classroom under the guise of academic freedom. In response to statements by Lynn and threats of legal challenges, the Discovery Institute (DI), a conservative think tank that champions ID and helped push SB 733, resorted to name-calling AU “Chicken Littles.” I believe that if Darwin were still alive to know that in 2008 American public schools are still being pressured to teach creationism he might be inclined to think the sky actually is falling. Louisiana is not the only state in which the DI has attempted to push its creationist agenda this year. Similar bills have been introduced in five other state legislatures: Florida, Alabama, Missouri, Michigan, and South Carolina.  (In Florida, Alabama and Missouri, the bills have died without passing, although Florida came awfully close.) While the Discovery Institute and the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), an affiliate of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, claim that the bill they helped Sen. Bill Nevers introduce is merely intended to promote open debate and not creationism, the argument is a shameless sham. On its Web site, the LFF offers a textbook addendum on creationism; this is the exact type of material that SB 733 is intended to invite into the classroom. Additionally, Casey Luskin, DI Program Officer for Public Policy and Legal affairs asserted that the Louisiana bill is a “significant step forward” in allowing teachers to teach “scientific evidence for and against evolution.” In fact, DI is known for its commitment to religious certainties, not scientific evidence. Federal courts have already struck down similar statutes intended to bring religion into the classrooms. In 1987, the Supreme Court invalidated a Louisiana law requiring “creation science” to be taught alongside evolution in Edwards v. Aguillard, and in 2005 a federal district court stuck down a policy in Dover, Pa., requiring the teaching of ID in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Districts. Both courts defined creationism or ID as clearly religious and therefore unconstitutional in public school science classes. Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and an expert witness in the Kitzmiller case, argues: “The legislature shouldn’t be allowing creationists to undermine Louisiana public schools. The House of Representatives just gave the Religious Right a green light to use other people’s children for their own agenda.” Perhaps the sky isn’t falling, but American United staff members are certainly not “Chicken Littles” for blowing the whistle on the great injustice about to be dealt to Louisiana public school pupils. (Comment on this)