We freethinkers have witnessed the efforts of Newt Gingrich, William F. Buckley, and the Religious Right to force public prayer into tax-supported schools. The Christian Coalition has joined the effort, making it part of their Contract on the American Family. In response to this campaign, many of us already have joined in the struggle to defend the American value of separation of church and state.
The fundamentalists have attempted to label their crusade as an attempt to promote "voluntary" prayer in schools. Of course, First Amendment defenders have pointed out that children already can pray voluntarily at lunch, during recess, and silently during class.
Clearly, the Christian Right is pushing this agenda item in order to use social pressure to coerce children into praying. Many children will feel humiliated if they are sent out of the room while others are praying. Nearly all atheist, agnostic, Jewish, and other non-Christian children who do not participate in what will be de facto Christian prayer will be subjected to hostility, taunts, and acts of physical violence from other students. Rev. Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, and Newt Gingrich are hoping that this will pressure students into becoming prayerful Christians.
Those of us who are trying to defend human rights and freedoms should consider the use of a new term: "COERCED PRAYER" in schools. Stating our opposition to coerced prayer in public schools frames the issue in a more accurate manner which shows why it is so important to defend the First Amendment rights of children in America.
Excommunication: It's fun. It's easy. I did it by phone! I simply called the Catholic Parish rectory (Ed. note: what an ironic name.) where I had been baptized almost 40 years ago. The receptionist at St. James seemed a bit taken aback when I inquired about how I would go about getting myself excommunicated. After a minute or two on hold, a Father O'Hara asked how he could help me.
DN: I'd like to be officially excommunicated.
FO: May I ask why?
DN: Sure, I was baptized in your church in 1957, but I haven't set foot in
a church to worship in over 30 years. I should add that I am totally
opposed to the church's policies on homosexuality, birth control,
abortion, and the right-to-die and have for some time now considered
myself to be a born-again atheist.
Of course, I could have gone on and on but this call was on my dime.
DN: So what do I have to do in order to expedite my excommunication?
FO: Well...you've told me that you are now an atheist so you may consider
yourself excommunicated.
DN: That's it? I don't need to put this in writing?
FO: No, that won't be necessary.
DN: I was hoping you'd remove my name from your records.
FO: That doesn't happen even with your excommunication. As long as you
aren't registered with any other parish, you don't have to do anything
else.
DN: Okay then! Thanks for clearing that up and for the official
excommunication.
What a relief. But, I have a nagging suspicion that I wasn't told the whole story. I want a piece of paper in my hand that says I am no longer considered to be one of 950 million Catholics so my "crusade" continues...
The phrase has a humorous twist to it, but it is based on the fact that everyone is born an atheist. Later in life, religious beliefs usually are drummed into people's heads. Once someone becomes an atheist again, they are in their natural state, and could conceivably be described as born again. The phrase probably will not gain universal acceptance from atheists, but it does make an important point.
Attorney General Janet Reno made a Republican-like statement explaining her decision to the press, claiming, "There was not a federal statute or federal program involved. And we determined that we would not participate."
This states-rights view was disputed by Matt Coles of the ACLU's National Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. "DOJ has a long history of filing briefs in Supreme Court cases, even those where the United States is not a party and there is not a (federal) program or law involved."
Many activists viewed this decision as a concession to conservative Christians and an effort not to conflict with the Clinton Administrations efforts to defend their version of the ban on lesbian, bisexuals, and gays in the military. [Source: Washington Blade 6/9/95]
This brings up two interesting points. There has been considerable speculation as to whether Attorney General Janet Reno is in fact a lesbian. Was this action in part motivated by an effort to persuade people that she is heterosexual?
Also, the Colorado boycott was suspended when lower courts ruled against Colorado's Amendment 2 which outlaws any state and local ordinances prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If the US Supreme Court allows Amendment 2 to take effect, will our community have the resolve needed to renew the boycott?
The bill would prevent the U.S. from supporting international efforts to reduce overpopulation. Although President Clinton has said that he would veto the foreign aid bill that this amendment was attached to, this suggests that there is strong anti-choice sentiment in the Congress. [Source: Daily News 6/29/95]
Employees of the bookstore had been finding similar hate-literature placed inside books every Saturday afternoon for six months prior to the incident. At first, the literature was limited to the "Religion and Homosexuality" section of the bookstore. However, the effort expanded. A bookstore employee complained, "...putting it in the AIDS section...they are just getting sicker." [Source: Washington Blade 6/9/95]
In addition to editing the AGLA newsletter for much of its existence, Sanders compiled quite a record as a street activist. He was very much involved in ACT UP/Houston; he picketed homophobic churches; and he was arrested challenging a Bible monument on public property in Texas.
Sanders had the courage to express sometimes unpopular views within the queer community. He spoke out against gay churches with passion:
"Gay churches hide the truth that Christianity is the underlying force which, to this day, makes Gay men and women second-class citizens. Smoothing over the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, Gay ministers have become the 'Uncle Toms' of the Gay Culture by helping to perpetuate a system of attitudes, practices, rituals, and beliefs that has bound mankind for centuries."Unable to find someone within the organization to continue its efforts, Sanders willed that American Gay and Lesbian Atheists cease to exist after his death.
Reuben Heller was a voice for action within the local freethought community. He was a leading figure in passing Alliance resolutions supporting rational drug policies and opposing Boy Scout discrimination against atheists and gays. He was working on the Boy Scout issue right up until he died.
Heller was a member of over 40 organizations which support separation of church and state. One of them was GALAH. He was the only non-gay member of the Alliance to join GALAH as an individual.
Change ministries claim to be successful at converting homosexuals. Their advertisements consists largely of anecdotal testimonials from "ex-gay," paying very little attention to their actual success rate, recidivism rate, or outright failure rate. Do they really work? What is their success rate, and what exactly is meant by success? What is the suicide rate among those who stay with the ministries, compared to the rates of those who leave, or the general lesbian and gay population? Would a higher suicide rate be considered an acceptable loss, if it "saves just one soul"?
Proponents of change ministries argue that since gay positive counseling is widely available, it is only fair that change ministries also be made available to provide balance, equal time, or as an alternative to those who would rather change their homosexual orientation. In the absence of homophobia from churches and other sources, would anyone want to change their sexual orientation? Are change ministries designed to serve their clients, or to serve themselves and the religious communities that "don't agree with" homosexuality? Are these ministries part of a larger political agenda?
Do clients, particularly minors, join change ministries voluntarily, or are they pressured or coerced by family, friends, and religious leaders? Could this be considered recruitment" of vulnerable people into a lifestyle which is unhealthy for them? Would proponents of change ministries prefer a more compulsory form of counseling? Do change ministries pose a threat to gays and lesbians who are happy the way they are?
Where does the government fit in? Could the government decide to encourage or even compel lesbians, gays, or bisexuals to try to change their sexual orientations? Could change ministries be subsidized through taxpayer dollars? Are they already? Should change ministries be monitored, scrutinized, regulated, or perhaps even prosecuted, to curb any incidence of malpractice, fraud, abuse, or quackery, as the government does for other counseling programs? Or do religious ministries merit special rights, privileges, treatment, or consideration, simply because they are religious?
The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy who said "For the university, by regulation, to cast disapproval on particular viewpoints of its students risks the suppression of free speech and creative inquiry in one of the vital centers for the nation's intellectual life, its college and university campuses."
Refusing to subsidize something is not the same thing as "to cast disapproval," and fundamentalist students on the campus would have been free to promote their views without the public subsidy. More importantly, the Court majority violated the First Amendment prohibition against government establishment of religion. Thomas Jefferson founder of the University of Virginia had made it clear that the purpose of the religion clauses of the First Amendment was the "building of a wall of separation between church and state."
In another ruling, the court decided 7-2 to allow the Ku Klux Klan to erect a cross in a public park in Ohio. That the impetus for such an action came from the KKK gives one insight on the mentality behind efforts to put religious displays in public parks. [Source: Daily News 6/30/95]
Typos and stale links: Page maintenance email
This page was last modified on .
This page has been hit times since
November 16, 1995.