Morality Watch-2001 to 2007
In the 2000 and 2004 elections, many candidates argued that they were moral and won because they discussed issues of morality and religion. As secular humanists, we are interested in ethics and morality. As a result, we have a patriotic duty to make sure that these politicians who call themselves moral are held to a high standard.
The opinions on this web page do not necessarily represent the view of the Washington Area Secular Humanists (WASH) Board or Directors.
Bush's Legacy
President Bush should be thinking about his legacy. He is reported to think that he will be compared to President Harry Truman, who was unpopular during his term, but who is admired now. But unlike Truman's motto, “The Buck Stops Here,” Bush's motto should be “The Buck Stops Nowhere.”
Bush's most powerful associates (it is hard to imagine that they work for him, in any sense of the word) are Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, who don't seem to be accountable to anyone. Bush is telling his Administration officials that they don't have to testify to Congress, by invoking executive privilege. That says that national security is an excuse for covering up their accountability for their mistakes. Officials are permitted to talk to Congress, as long as they are not under oath (and therefore may lie). He commuted the sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was convicted of perjury, removing his legal punishment. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seems to be headed toward a similar fate.
Meanwhile, no one is answerable for the endless war in Iraq, or for losing ground in the war on terrorism. Instead, Bush is sponsoring sales of military arms to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which are Islamic governments and populations that may use the weapons against us.
Bush gives all responsibility to the military, and then calls anyone who criticizes them as unpatriotic for failing to support the troops. Meanwhile, everyone agrees that a political solution is needed in Iraq, in addition to a military approach, but Bush's political pressure and diplomacy don't seem to be making any headway.
If Bush was really interested in his legacy, he should set a precedent that would truly be remembered. He should be the first president who resigns because of incompetence. He should, first, admit that the Iraq War was a complete mistake in judgement and in execution, and that he has no idea how to deal with it. Next, he should ask for the resignation of Vice President Cheney (for health reasons, of course). Then he should appoint a new vice president who can be approved by Congress. (This new vice president might be the only hope that the Republican Party has in the 2008 election.) Finally, he should resign, with all due apologies for being incapable of fulfilling his oath of office to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Of course, he won't do this. More likely, he will tread water for the rest of his term, hoping that Congress doesn't decide to impeach him. In the process, he may well destroy any credibility within the Repubican Party for being honest and competent, for decades. At the least, he will end the post-Reagan era.
July 31, 2007
Pardon for Libby
President Bush acted quickly, within 5 hours, to keep Lewis Libby from going to jail by commuting his sentence. This apparently was an extremely urgent issue for him. If Bush reacted this quickly to problems in Iraq, perhaps the war would be over by now.
Full text of Bush statement on Libby decision
This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.
Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.
Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.
Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.
I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.
Although Pres. Bush has the legal authority to commute Libby's sentence, the fact that he acted so quickly to keep a friend out of jail has the appearance of a cover-up. There was no consultation with the Justice Department, and there was no legal basis at all for saying that the sentence was “excessive.”
Commuting the sentence gives the appearance that Libby was lying in his testimony to protect the contributions of Vice President Cheney and possibly Bush himself to the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity. It gives the appearance that Libby was promised a pardon before he testified. Of course, he may not have been promised a pardon. We may never know. But it certainly shows that Bush doesn't care what the appearance is. It shows that he places loyalty of his friends above the legal process.
Politically Motivated Firings?
For several years, the Union of Concerned Scientists has pointed out that the Bush Administration has fired scientists and made political appointments to sensitive positions based on ideology, rather than experience or qualifications. For a review, look here. It appears that this Administration is now hiring and firing prosecution attorneys in the Department of Justice for political reasons, just like they were doing for scientists and technical experts. Perhaps Congress will now pay attention, since it affects lawyers rather than just scientists.
We, as citizens, vote for the President on the understanding that he is chief executive, and as such he can hire and fire employees in the Executive Branch at his convenience. Sometimes, people are fired for insubordination or incompetence. But, as citizens, we also expect that appointees are competent and will do their jobs in a fair, even-handed way. The jobs of government employees do not include helping politicians get re-elected. When competent people are fired because they don't follow the political directions of the Administration, it is time to get alarmed about the management of the country.
Eight U.S. attorneys lost their jobs. Now investigators are assessing if the dismissals were politically motivated.
A key question for investigators now: did Justice officials, with involvement from the White House, fire attorneys in retaliation for actions that didn't favor the GOP? David Iglesias, who was dumped as U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, says Sen. Peter Domenici called him and pressed him to bring indictments in a corruption case involving local Democrats before last November's election. When he didn't give the answer Domenici wanted, "the line went dead." A senior Justice official, who didn't want to be named discussing sensitive legal issues, says Domenici had earlier complained to the deputy attorney general about Iglesias's record on "public corruption." (Domenici apologized for his call to Iglesias, but says he "never pressured" him.)
Another fired prosecutor, John McKay, of Seattle, tells NEWSWEEK that local Republicans pressured him to launch a criminal probe of voting fraud that would tilt a deadlocked Washington governor's race. "They wanted me to go out and start arresting people," he says, adding that he refused to do so because there was "no evidence." After McKay was fired in December, he says he also got a phone call from a "clearly nervous" Elston asking if he intended to go public: "He was offering me a deal: you stay silent and the attorney general won't say anything bad about you." (Elston says he "can't imagine" how McKay got that impression. The call was meant to reassure McKay that the A.G. would not detail the reasons for the firings.)
....By the end of the press conference, [Attorney General Alberto Gonzales] made it clear he wasn't apologizing for anything substantive about the firings. “All political appointees can be removed by the president of the United States for any reason,” he said. “I stand by the decision, and I think it was a right decision.”
How is this related to religion? It turns out that Monica Goodling, who was the White House liaison to the Justice Department and had a roll in the firings, was one of the many graduates of conservative Christian schools to work in the Bush Administration.
March 15, 2007
The problem in Iraq is not with the U.S. Military, but with the Bush Administration's handling of the political situation.
We Might 'Win', But Still Lose
Lt. Col. Steven Duke says the Mahdi Army is 'sitting on the 50-yard line, eating popcorn, watching us do their work for them.'
Over the past three and a half years, the dominant flaw in the Bush administration's handling of Iraq is that it has, both intentionally and inadvertently, driven the country's several communities apart. Every seemingly neutral action, holding elections, firing Baathists from the bureaucracy, building up an Iraqi military and police force, has had seismic sectarian consequences. The greatest danger of Bush's new strategy, then, isn't that it won't work but that it will, and thereby push the country one step further along the road to all-out civil war. Only a sustained strategy of pressure on the Maliki government, unlike anything Bush has been willing to do yet, has any chance of averting this outcome.
January 29, 2007
Is Bush Authorizing the Opening of Mail?
Most people assume that their U.S. Postal mail is a last refuge of private communication. But it appears that Bush is now authorizing opening of mail, in the name of fighting terrorism.
Warrantless mail searches may be allowed
A statement attached to postal legislation by President Bush last month may have opened the way for the government to open mail without a warrant. The White House denies any change in policy.
But in signing a postal bill just before Christmas, President Bush said federal law also gives the government authority to open the mail "for foreign intelligence collection."
White House spokesman Tony Snow said that's nothing new. “All this is saying is that there are provisions at law for in exigent circumstances for such inspections. It has been thus. This is not a change in law, this is not new. What the signing statement indicates is what present law allows, in making it clear what the provisions are," Snow said Thursday in his daily briefing.
But members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, say that's not what they intended the law to do. And they call it another example of a president claiming new legal authority while signing a bill into law. “I was really surprised. There was absolutely nothing in the Postal Reform bill that in any way diminished or changed the privacy protections for domestic sealed mail,” Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said.
...But when Bush signed the Postal Reform act, he added a statement saying that his administration would construe that provision “in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances. ...”
“The signing statement raises serious questions whether he is authorizing opening of mail contrary to the Constitution and to laws enacted by Congress,” said Ann Beeson, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “What is the purpose of the signing statement if it isn't that?”
January 5, 2007
President Bush is still trying to decide what to do in Iraq. Although it is difficult for an outsider to know the details of the advice he is now getting, it is easier to use 20/20 hindsight to say what he should have done.
Bush seemed to assume that he could turn the country over to the military, and they would get it under control without his involvement. What he should have done was to get personally involved from the beginning. He should have used the influence of the Presidency to sell the idea of democracy. He should have been on the phone or at meetings with any or all of the leaders and wannabe leaders in Iraq from the beginning of the invasion. Granted, they may not have been happy to talk to him. But the U.S. President has clout, even in the most hardened of resistance fighters. Bush should have waged a political campaign for the Iraqi government. If he had contacted them and taken them seriously, they may have seriously considered becoming involved in the process of the democratic government. Instead, the resistance fighters, and many normal Iraqis, have decided that fighting each other is their main recourse. They haven't been sold on the idea that a political system can work for them.
The problem with turning the country over to the military is that the military mind has a different idea of success and control than a political mind. The military goal is to stop fighting by force. This is not to criticize the U.S. Armed Forces, which are doing the best job that they can. The problem is that the country of Iraq needs a political solution. The military solution was used by Sadam Hussein to keep the peace. Bush claimed that he didn't like that solution. But he didn't make the effort that was needed to convince Iraqis that a democratic, political solution was the best one.
So now the U.S. is in the position of trying to turn the country over from our military to the new Iraqi military to stop the fighting. The question is, Is the Iraqi military up to the job? The U.S. military is well educated, well disciplined, and well equipped. The Iraqis aren't. They also lack another important element. They don't have a leader or a cause that they are willing to fight, kill, and die for. Under Saddam, and many other dictators, the military follows the strong dictator because they are promised benefits for their fighting. In Iraq, they are expected to fight or die for a democracy with a weak leader. They haven't been convinced that the democracy will work for them better than simple alliance with their ethnic groups. Will they fight for an ideal that they don't believe in? Unlikely.
December 29, 2006
According to Newsweek (November 20, 2006, p. 46), in the fall of 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked by aids whether he thought that an invasion of Iraq could become another Vietnam.
Rumsfeld was outraged at the very suggestion. "Vietnam? You think you have to tell me about Vietnam?" Rumsfeld sputtered. "Of course it won't be Vietnam. We are going to go in, overthrow Saddam, get out. That's it."
Since then, the Bush Administration has continued to maintain that there is no comparison between Iraq and Vietnam. Perhaps they are right. If anything, the situation in Iraq is worse than the Vietnam War. Vietnam didn't have three ethic groups that are at each other's throats, which Iraq does. Vietnam didn't have several neighboring countries that are picking sides in the civil war conflict and trying to keep it going. Iraq has Syria and Iran, both allowing insurgents to pass freely across the borders and encouraging groups to fight. Turkey is also threatening to attack the Kurdish region to prevent Kurds from Turkey from trying to unite with those in Iraq.
President Bush just returned from a visit to Vietnam. He may take another lesson from Vietnam. After the war was over and after U.S. troops were withdrawn, Vietnam developed a capitalistic economy and some political freedom. Perhaps the same thing will happen to Iraq, eventually, after the U.S. troops leave.
How about a new slogan for Iraq policy: "Give Iraq back to the Iraqis."
For more information, look at the column by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek:
The Next Step? Think Vietnam.
There is much moaning in Washington about the return of the 'realists.' But what we need is a Kissingerian effort to extricate America.
...Both sides now see American troops as the problem. The Shiite ruling coalition and the Sunni insurgency both believe that if only the United States were to get out of the way, they could defeat their enemies outright. That's why, in the most recent poll of Iraqis, taken in September, 91 percent of Sunnis and 74 percent of Shiites said they wanted American forces to leave within a year.
Iraq is not Vietnam. But America's predicament in Iraq is becoming increasingly similar to the one it faced in Southeast Asia more than 30 years ago.
Pope Benedict recently made a statement about Islam that enraged many Muslims. But what was he really talking about?
A Pope's Holy War
By Jon Meacham, Newsweek
....the Vatican argued that the real point of the lecture was to be found in this sentence: "A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures," Benedict said, "is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures." In a post-Regensburg statement, Paul Cardinal Poupard, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, said, "Readers will find that this central theme is far more important than the introductory citation of the Emperor Manuel II..."
....Benedict seemed to be denouncing Islam while failing to acknowledge that any religion, including his own, can be manipulated and perverted to evil ends.
We Secular Humanists think that humanism is a much better way to engage in "dialog of cultures" than any religion. In fact, for people of different religions to even regard each other as real human beings, they must use humanistic principles. If they use the principles of their own religions, they have to conclude that unbelievers are damned and not worthy of anything but pity. So humanists join Muslims in being offended by the pope's statements, although we will refrain from bombing any churches.
Questions for the Interrogators
By Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek
The president and the legislative branch are negotiating a new system to determine the guilt or innocence of terrorism suspects, and it will have to pass muster with the courts. It is heartening as well that some of the key senators challenging the president's position are senior Republicans. Principle is triumphing over partisanship. Let's hope the debate will end with the United States' embracing a position that will allow America to reclaim the moral high ground.
Let's hope that both the courts and Congress do their part in making this Administration respect human rights worldwide, to show that America stands for more than killing and imprisoning people indefinitely without a court trial.
Bush Finally Vetos a Bill
President Bush, after five and a half years, finally decided that he had to veto a bill. Finally, there was something passed by Congress that wasn't acceptable to him. Unfortunately, that bill was for funding for stem cell research. Lack of that funding may delay cures for such diseases as diabetes, Parkinson's Disease, and spinal cord injury. Bush's religious convictions, and his obligation to his Religious Right supporters, seems to outweigh his concern for citizens with debilitating diseases.
The Center for Inquiry's Washington, D. C. Office of Public Policy has prepared a white paper on embryonic stem cell research, analyzing in more detail the arguments for and against embryonic stem cell research:
STEM CELL RESEARCH: An Approach to Bioethics Based on Scientific Naturalism
But even though Bush didn't veto any bills before, did he find a loophole? He may have decided not to enforce bills that he doesn't like, even without vetoing them. This loophole, which is probably illegal, is based on the use of a "signing statement." Bush has added signing statement to hundreds of bills that he has signed, and some of the signing statements have indicated that he wouldn't enforce the bills that Congress passed, if he doesn't want to. If Bush doesn't formally veto a bill, then Congress can't override the veto to force the president to enforce it, whether he likes it or not. Congress passed a bill in 2003 that forbad this practice, but Bush has continued to do it, ignoring the will of Congress. Finally, this practice is finding its way into the courts.
Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush
Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, who has led the fight against President Bush's signing statements, said Monday he would have a bill ready by the end of the week allowing Congress to sue him in federal court.
WASHINGTON - A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against President Bush's signing statements said Monday he would have a bill ready by the end of the week allowing Congress to sue him in federal court. "We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.
....Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.
.... Specter's announcement intensifies his challenge of the administration's use of executive power on a number of policy matters. Of particular interest to him are two signing statements challenging the provisions of the USA Patriot Act renewal, which he wrote, and legislation banning the use of torture on detainees.
U.S. scrambles for Guantanamo options
By Josh White
The Bush administration likely will have to extend rights to terrorism suspects at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that it has denied for years, after the Supreme Court invalidated the government's system of military trials and ruled that the detainees must be treated according to international standards, officials and experts said yesterday.
... Retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a professor of international affairs at the U.S. Military Academy who visited Guantanamo Bay last week, said the military commissions were destined to fail. He said the government should have used courts-martial and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which grants defendants more rights.
"We put ourselves in an unnecessary legal mess from the beginning, and now we've gotten ourselves in such a mess legally and politically, there's no easy solution," McCaffrey said yesterday. "The UCMJ is the only way to go forward."
... "Just because you're a president at war doesn't mean the law ceases to exist," said Jumana Musa, a lawyer at Amnesty International. "The best-case scenario now is that they charge the detainees under an established system of law. If they're not going to charge them, they need to release them."
It's about time that the Bush Administration was forced to deal with this problem. Five years after 9/11/01, someone should have thought about how to deal with terrorism suspects without simply locking them up and throwing away the key indefinitely. This is still America, isn't it?
From God would be an atheist., June 11, 2006, All Rights Reserved C Martin Foreman
[ABC newscaster John] Stossel, an affirmed Libertarian, had offered a hundred dollars to anyone in the audience who could identify anything that government does better than the free market.
When I reached the microphone, I pointed out that the US spends considerably more per capita on health care than many European nations with nationalized medical systems, yet its citizens are on average less healthy and lead shorter lives. I would accept my hundred bucks in cash or a check.
Stossel did not open his pocketbook. Instead, he claimed that health care in the US was dominated by cartels of insurance agencies. A real market, where you negotiated the cost of care directly with your physician, would be both cheaper and more effective than the European system.
With a dozen other people waiting to ask questions, I could not challenge Stossel's response. Whatever its faults, health care in America is much closer to a free market than in countries where the government has a monopoly or privileged position - yet the free market consistently provides a worse service for the majority of its citizens.
And even if the market were totally free, direct negotiation with the service provider, is only an option for those who, like Stossel, are intelligent, articulate and assertive. Millions of Americans are handicapped by physical or mental disability, or other social, psychological or economic circumstances from meaningfully participating in any health care market.
In Stossel's world, these people would either be charged high rates because they could not negotiate good rates or would be unable to access any health care. In a totally free market, their higher health costs and lower life expectancies would result in the average American paying too much and get too little for their health care.
Stossel's Economic Libertarianism is an option for the intellectual and economic elite. It is, however, a flawed system that fails to understand the social, psychological and economic obstacles that face so many Americans. There is a hole in its heart.
A common problem with popular explanantions of economic libertarianism is that whenever a libertarian sees an example that contradicts their ideology, they automatically conclude that it must be because the market isn't really free. If the market were really free, then their simplistic ideology would work.
Health care represents serious problems with free market thinking, and it isn't because the market isn't free. Some problems are mentioned in the above quote. The more basic problem is that if a person is seriously ill or injured, he or she simply doesn't have the liberty to negotiate the best price. If you are going to die in five minutes, you can't shop around for the best, cheapest surgeon. You take what you can get, and you worry about paying afterward.
Another problem is that insurance policies are always cheaper if some expensive diseases or treatments are excluded. Someone who wants the least expensive insurance will choose a plan that doesn't cover the most expensive treatments. But if the person with that kind of insurance needs a kidney transplant or a heart transplant, what are their options? Ask for government or charitable subsidies, or die. Again, this is not true liberty, not a real free choice.
Libertarians should admit that there are some cases in which the free market doesn't work well, and government intervention is necessary, even if there are many cases in which the free market does work well.
From Americans United for Separation of Church and State (letter signed by Barry Lynn, June 2006)
The New York Times reported in May that Focus on the Family founder James Dobson is again playing hardball with Washington politicians to push the Religious Right's extremist agenda... This summer, we expect to see a series of votes in Congress designed solely to placate the Religious Right, including votes on constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage and flag desecration. It will also consider bills to deny federal courts the right to hear church-state cases.... Worried Congressional leaders want to energize the Religious Right in advance of the November elections--and they're not above sacrificing our constitutional rights to keep their grip on power....
The latest claim coming our of the Religious Right is that there is a "war on Christians." Give me a break. Far from being marginalized in public policy debates, Religious Right groups are able to threaten and issue marching orders to the nation's leading lawmakers.... (It is helpful to define some terms here. When [they] talk about "Christians," they really mean "far-right fundamentalist Christians." When they use the term "war," they mean any action by a court or elected official that they don't agree with.) The rhetoric revolving around a war on Christians is nothing more than a tactic by Religious Right groups to continue to persuade as many citizens as possible that religious conservatives are being persecuted, and at the same time, raise boatloads of money in their quest to maintain their influence on politicians on the state and federal levels.
This effort by fundamentalist Christian leaders is clearly manipulative and underhanded. Rather than making a public, reasonable case for their positions, they approach politicians in secret with threats of opposition from a few Religious Right leaders. Rather than being forthright about their political power, they create publicity stunts that Christians are under attack. The fictional war makes people fearful enough to make donations to keep the Religious Right leaders in power. We have already seen votes in Congress that are demanded by the Religious Right. Yet the leaders insist that they are persecuted! This appears to be a totally hypocritical effort by the Religious Right to collect all the money and personal political power that they can, for their own personal agrandisement. WWJD??
Did Oil Dependence lead to the Iraq War?
Read or listen to the NPR story Kevin Phillips: America Under the Influence of Oil
Christian Coalition shrinks as debt grows
The once-mighty Christian Coalition, founded 17 years ago by the Rev. Pat Robertson as the political fundraising and lobbying engine of the Christian right, is more than $2 million in debt, beset by creditors' lawsuits and struggling to hold on to some of its state chapters. Read more...
Rev. Pat Robertson, terrorist?
Rev. Pat Robertson, Religious Right leader and founder of the Christian Coalition, advocated political assassination! Read about it on MSNBC.
P.S. After two days of intense criticism, Robertson apologized.
(Is this position from the sect of Christianity that advocates, "Kill them all and let God sort them out?")
In December 2005, Robertson told members of the Dover, Pa., school board that they were risking divine wrath by allowing evolution to be taught in schools.
The Difference Between Religion and Science
From Jonathan Alter, Newsweek Aug. 15, 2005:
One of the reasons we have fewer science majors is the pernicious right-wing notion that conventional biology is vaguely atheistic. Now President Bush has given that view a boost. When Bush was asked about intelligent design last week, he answered, "Both sides ought to be properly taught...so people can understand what the debate is about." This sounds reasonable until you realize that, as the president's own science adviser, John H. Marburger III admits, there is no real debate. "Intelligent design is not a scientific concept," Marburger told the New York Times.... [Evolution is] among the most durable theories in all of science.... Bush's policy of politicizing science...will eventually wreak havok with his legacy.
Those in charge of education in this country must realize that science is about reality as we observed it. Intelligent design is about wishful thinking about the way some people would like the world to be. Science is hard work. It doesn't help students to tell them that they can adopt theories because they wish them to be true, and ignore others because they don't like them. For the United States to prosper, we need more people trained in science and technology, not ones who are taught to wish real hard.
Hopeful Direction for Liberal Christians
From MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7911488/
Evangelicals seek broader focus
... The declarations - a statement of principles by the National Association of Evangelicals and a study of growth in Southern Baptist congregations - serve to crystallize discontent among many evangelical and conservative Christians with their public perception in recent years. The NAE document, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," was the product of three years of work...
The National Association of Evangelicals' statement identifies seven areas of concern in which evangelicals should step up their social engagement:
- We work to protect religious freedom and liberty of conscience.
- We work to nurture family life and protect children.
- We work to protect the sanctity of human life and to safeguard its nature.
- We seek justice and compassion for the poor and vulnerable.
- We work to protect human rights.
- We seek peace and work to restrain violence.
- We labor to protect God's creation.
As a secular humanist, all I can say is, "It's about time!" The Evangelical Christians certainly have a public perception of being right-wing ideologues, even if individual Christians don't necessarily agree. I'm not sure what Bible the Religious Right is reading, when they seem to be more concerned with tax cuts for high income individuals and corporations, rather than care for the sick, poor, and retired.
We hope the political organizations of the Religious Right will work on the above principles, that I consider to be humanistic, rather than following leaders who are only interested in ambitious grabs for power.
We will argue with some of the details, though. (For example, we have to take care of the environment, because God has a poor record of taking care of his creation.)
On the Right to Die
From the Council for Secular Humanism:
AMHERST, N.Y. (March 25, 2005)--Theresa "Terri" Schiavo, the Florida resident who has spent the last fifteen years in a persistent vegetative state, has spent recent weeks at the center of a political and legal maelstrom. The courts have consistently found that her husband, Michael Schiavo, is carrying out his wife's wishes in trying to cease life-support measures; meanwhile, parents Robert and Mary Schindler, arguing that Terri would wish to live, have waged an unrelenting battle to keep her feeding tube inserted.
Spokespeople for the Council for Secular Humanism (CSH) say that, as heartrending as the case is, the courts have made the right decision. In a recent statement issued by the Council, David Koepsell, Executive Director of the CSH, says that "fundamentalist political ideologues have seized upon the Terri Schiavo case to make a bold, federal play against individual liberties."
"The Council for Secular Humanism praises the Florida and federal courts' rulings to let Terri Schiavo's decision to die with dignity stand," Koepsell says, "and we hope that politicians who have interjected themselves into this personal decision, for cynical political gain, will think long and hard about what this means for liberty and justice."
Medical ethicist Richard Hull calls the situation a power grab by religious conservatives and a betrayal of the sanctity of marriage. "Americans will not stand for the burdens of having to defend family decisions, confirmed by state courts, before federal panels," he says. "They will decisively reject such meddlesome moralistic madness and beat back these assaults on reason and decency." Hull urges all Americans put their wishes in writing, such as with a living will: "Until the religious right rediscovers the Bill of Rights," he says, "we must all act to protect ourselves and presume no respect by others for our informal understandings with loved ones."
On the tsunami
"In this kind of tragedy, there is no religion," said Syed Abdullah, a local imam in the ancient south Indian port of Nagapattinam, where Muslims, Hindus, and Christians have lived together peacefully for centuries. "Let the dead be buried together. They died together in the sea. Let their souls get peace together." [Newsweek, January 10, 2005, p. 37]
Many people think that a natural disaster like the tsunami is an "act of God" or a punishment for sins. It is not. It is a natural change in the planet that generated a huge release of energy, and human beings happened to be in the path of that energy. The best that we can do is try to predict or prevent such events. It is completely different from wars or other human-made disasters that a society can address.
On Politics
Both political parties, Democratic and Republican, have problems when it comes to being champions of democracy. As Barack Obama said, "One party seems to be defending a moribund status quo, and the other is defending an oligarchy. It's not a very attractive choice." [quoted in Newsweek, Dec. 27, 2004, p. 77]
Another important problem shared by both parties is the practice of redistricting, sanctioned by both parties. In the U.S. House of Representatives, districts are drawn using computer programs to almost guarantee that the incumbent will be unchallenged and will be immunte to upset. This practice only encourages the candidates to play to the extremes of their party, rather than the moderates. The candidates are increasingly beholden to special interest groups, instead of the average citizen. [from Newsweek, Dec. 27, 2004, p. 45]. Rep. Tom DeLay delivered 5 new Republican seats to the House in the 2004 election with his gerrymandering scheme [p.91].
This type of redistricting threatens the very idea of a representative government, but neither party seems willing to restrict the practice.
Social Security Reform
"Bush talked about Social Security's being a $10.4 trillion problem.... But the shortfall in Bush's Medicare drug program is $17 trillion. In other words, the problem that Bush himself created a year ago is two thirds again as large as Social Security's problem. What's more, the drug plan starts costing taxpayers big bucks just a year from now, in 2006.... Social security, for all its flaws, will take in more than enough cash to pay for itself for a dozen years even if nothing changes.... If Bush really wants to have a meeting of the minds about Social Security, he might consider talking with people who have views different from his. And he might want to do something about his prescription-drug program before it eats us all alive." [Allan Sloan, "Peddling a Crisis (the wrong one)", Newsweek, Dec. 27, 2004, p. 61].
Ethics in Congress
"Faced with mounting evidence that current ethics rules do not cover new ways lobbyists have devised to curry favor with members of Congress, the House Ethics Committee plans to unveil an array of proposed changes this year. But the proposals appear likely to loosen ethics restrictions, not tighten them." [Walter F. Roche Jr., Los Angelest Times, printed in The Sun, Jan 1, 2005, p. 3A]
Ethics in the Supreme Court
"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts since joining the Supreme Court... Thomas has reported accepting much more valuable gifts than his Supreme Court colleagues over the last six years... An American Bar Association panel called for tightening the rules to forbid judges from taking expensive gifts, free tickets, and other valuable items, regardless of the donor." [Richard A. Serrano and David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times, printed in The Sun, Jan 1, 2005, p. 4A]
On Miracles
Rev. H. B. London said, "I don't want to be too simplistic, but our faith is somewhat childlike. Though other people may question the historical validity of the virgin birth, and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we don't." London is a vice president of James Dobson's conservative Focus on the Family organization in Colorado Springs. [from Newsweek, "The Birth of Jesus," by Jon Meacham, Dec. 13, 2004, p. 51.]
Is it moral to treat adults like children, and to avoid pointing out Biblical passages and physical impossibilities that contradict the mythical stories? For more discussion, click here.
On the Bush Administration
Here is a selection of lies or exaggerations from President George W. Bush:
What he said: Bush claims to want a democracy in Iraq with religious toleration, free speech, and public discussion of issues.
What he does: Bush doesn't seem able to accept discussion or dissent in his own government. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said a tax cut was unaffordable, and he was fired. Joseph Wilson questioned the intelligence about Iraq seeking nuclear fuel from Africa, and an attempt was made to discredit him by exposing his wife as a CIA operative. Army General Eric Shinseki said that winning a war in Iraq would require several hundred thousand troops, and he was sent to early retirement. On the other hand, George Tenet, CIA Director who presided over the intelligence fiasco in Iraq, received a Presidential Medal of Freedom for supporting Bush.
What he said: During the 2000 campaign, he said he wouldn't intervene in other countries' affairs, and he criticized Clinton for doing it.
What he did: Using 9/11 as a rationale, he declared war on Iraq, overthrew the government, and committed the U.S. to indefinite occupation of that country to set up a democracy in a country that may not be ready for one. The excuse for this invasion changed on a monthly basis, and it is still not clear what evidence Bush saw for a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, aside from some testimony that has been publicly discredited.
What he said: Bush and Cheney have repeatedly implied that there was some connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. This has been repeated so often that regular viewers of Fox News think there is a connection. During the campaign, Bush repeatedly implied that the Iraq war was connected to the war on terrorism, although he never explained how.
What he should know: No one in the intelligence agencies has shown any connection between Saddam and 9/11. All evidence is that Saddam was not a Muslim fundamentalist. He is the antithesis of anything Osama bin Laden and the Muslim terrorists claim to advocate. The Bush Administration seems to have selectively listened to intelligence that supported their point of view, and not a range of opinions. Since the war started, several major studies have found no evidence of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.
What he said: During the 2000 campaign, Bush indicated that he would seek out the best experts from previous Republican administrations, such as his father's, to compensate for his lack of foreign policy experience.
What he did: Before the Iraq War, Bush ignored advice from experts like Colin Powell, who said there needed to be more planning for the occupation, and from generals who said they would need more troops to occupy and secure the country. He ignored his father's judgement from 1991 that invading Iraq would be a disaster. Instead, Bush listened to ideologues who insisted that invading Iraq would change the Middle East, but who didn't plan for a long-term occupation. He didn't even have a cabinet meeting to discuss advantages and disadvantages. .
What he said: After 9/11, Bush said he wanted to find who was behind it.
What he did: Bush refused to set up a commission to investigate 9/11 for two years, until it was demanded by the 9/11 families. Then Bush refused to testify except off the record and with Cheney.
What he said: Bush claims to be a conservative.
What he did: Fiscally, he is anything but conservative. He turned the biggest budget surplus to the biggest deficit in history. He seems to have made no effort to cut spending correspondingly, since he never vetoed a spending bill. Bush couldn't or wouldn't cut spending to match the tax cuts, especially with the expenses from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The tax cuts disproportionately favor wealthy people, who are his biggest campaign contributors.
What he said: With the "No Child Left Behind" policy, Bush claims he will improve education with no child left behind.
What he did: Molly Ivans, a Texan who has reported on Bush since he was governor, wrote about the Texas version of education policy that was the prototype of "No Child Left Behind", in her book Bushwacked. The policy links education test scores to funding for schools. The result of the policy in Texas was to force administrators to make larger numbers of underachieving students drop out of school, in order to raise the test score averages. In other words, they were left behind.
What he said: Bush claims that he wants to unite the country.
What he did: During Bush's campaign appearances, his security detail screened out people who didn't support the President's reelection. People who were wearing pro-Kerry clothes or buttons were sent to remote locations, out of sight of the media. Although security from violent attacks is understandable, the Bush campaign workers kept out citizens who had political disagreements with Bush. How can Bush unite the country if he is unwilling to meet people who disagree with him?
What he said: The President of the United States should represent the best of democracy to the rest of the world, including respect for international agreements. One of the most respected agreements is the Geneva Conventions which apply to the treatment of prisoners of war.
What he did: Alberto Gonzales, then the White House council, called the Geneva Conventions "quaint." He recommmended, and the president accepted, reclassifying prisoners as "enemy combatants" who can be held indefinitely without trial or charges, and without acess to a lawyer. This policy of disregard for prisoners' human rights probably led to the torture at Abu Graib prison in Iraq by soldiers who took it to the logical extreme.
The opinions on this web page do not necessarily represent the view of the Washington Area Secular Humanists (WASH) Board or Directors.
Have any suggestions or comments? Send them to
bsh @ wash.org; or WASH, attn: web page, P.O. Box 198, Abingdon, MD 21009.