Don Ardell's Wellness Perspectives on Sex, Religion & Politics

A Commentary on the "Curb Your Enthusiasm" Episode When Larry David Inadvertently Peed On Jesus

Sometimes art not only imitates life - it pokes fun at it and shows how ludicrous humans can be when religious dogma, learned piety and superstition raise their ugly heads. The latest evidence for this assertion is seen in the dustup by theocrats that want blasphemy rules in this country. They would love to stifle freedom of speech that offends their sacred symbols. Never mind that large numbers of Americans do not regard their "sacred" objects with any reverence whatsoever, nor do they wish to be compelled to behave as if they did.

I'll tell you about the controversy in a moment, though I suspect you might be aware of it from the reactions of cable news and Right-Wing talk radio screechers. Fortunately, this particular controversy has a positive side. (I like to put a hopeful spin on everything.) The bright side is that the Christian Right reaction to the "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode dramatizes the likely consequences if a United Nations resolution entitled, "Combating the Defamation of Religion" is adopted.

Americans beware - Islamic fundamentalists seek not only to blow us up but also to muscle us into abandoning modernity - they want to strip your First Amendment rights to speak freely. The "Defamation" initiative at the UN could restrict your liberty to offend religious sensibilities. The Islamists have plenty of supporters among fundamentalist theocrats in America, who likewise would love to stifle speech that offends Christian sensibilities.

If successful, the UN effort by Islamists would have consequences injurious to valued privileges we enjoy based on our own constitution's Bill of Rights. The resolution proposed would have the effect of spreading Sharia and other religious law throughout the Western world and would block criticism of Islam - and other religions, no doubt Scientology among them.

The 192-nation Assembly is set to vote on Resolution 62/145. Fortunately, the US is on record as opposed to this resolution, stating that "defamation-related laws have been abused by governments and used to restrict human rights around the world, and sometimes Westerners have been caught in the web." Want an idea of where this kind of resolution leads? Consider these cases:

• An Afghan student is on death row for downloading an article about the role of women in Islam.
• In December 2007, a court sentenced two foreigners to six months in prison for allegedly marketing a book deemed offensive to Aisha, one of the Prophet Muhammad's wives.
•  A British teacher was sentenced to 15 days in jail in Sudan for offending Islam by allowing students to name the class teddy bear Muhammad in November 2007.
• In February 2007 in Egypt an Internet blogger was sentenced to four years in prison for writing a post that critiqued Islam.

Kevin Hasson, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, termed the UN resolution an affront to human rights law.  He was quoted as follows: "The whole idea of the defamation of religion is a Trojan horse for something else. When you talk about defamation, you talk about people being defamed and people being libeled, but ideas can't be defamed. Ideas don't have rights - people have rights." He said the resolution is a shield for Islamic fundamentalists who retaliate against perceived offenses and want to make Islamic Sharia law the law of the land. He said the resolution passes under the guise of protecting religion, but it actually endangers religious minorities in Islamic countries. (Source: Jennifer Lawinski, "U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution Curtails Free Speech, Critics Say," Fox News, October 06, 2008.)

The foreign governments promoting blasphemy legislation have little use for democratic rights, as is the case with the Right Wing religious extremists in this county who want to shut down criticism of their religious sensibilities.

Which brings me back to the delightful Larry David episode that has O'Reily and Catholic apologists in a stew bordering on a hissy fit.

Bill O'Reilly, Bill Donahue and Deal Hudson (the Fox bloviator and two professional Catholic PR lobbyists, respectively) claim not to be amused by what I consider hilarious scenes in a recent episode of HBO's "Curb Your Enthusiasm." The scene makes fun of simple-minded believers, the type long infamous for perceiving images of Jesus, Mary and/or Joseph (or all three) on cookies, building walls, clouds and so on. In case you have not watched "the episode," I can offer a little background, since I was watching when it first aired.

In the half hour sketch, Larry David is shown to have a bit of a urinary problem. Due to medication gone awry, his urinary trajectory has the force of a fire hose, and this is why a droplet flew up from the toilet to land under the eye of a Jesus painting. The woman whose home Larry was visiting, along with her equally devout (and quite frankly, moronic) daughter visit the bathroom after Larry departs, see the "tear" under Jesus' eye, and believe it is a sign, a miracle and some kind of message - and drop to their knees blessing themselves, all as choral church music soars. I fell off my chair laughing - but then that might be due to the effects of 12 years of Catholic education.

Anyone not amused by all this has, in my humble if proudly sacrilegious opinion, a serious religious addiction and a sorry sense of humor. As I suggested earlier, I believe that O'Reilly and the two Catholic lobbyists fall in this category, unless of course they, too, laughed their arses off but later decided to play outraged in order to fire up their base and generate a larger audience and/or more donations from the faithful. Consider these factors:

• Larry David makes fun of everybody, particularly himself.
• With David, nothing is sacred. My sentiments, exactly.
• Larry's peeing on Jesus was accidental. Besides, it was only a little drop. And what's Jesus' picture doing next to the crapper, anyway? Should he not be hung in a more prestigious location? Don't these people have a chapel somewhere, like right off the kitchen or something?
• No real pee was used nor was the "real" Jesus harmed in any way during the filming of the episode.

Is it even possible to be overly critical about or sufficiently disrespectful of an institution that has given us the Crusades, promoted slavery, unleashed the Inquisition, advocated bigotry against Jews and gays, discriminates against women, fosters child abuse and a delusional belief in miracles and expectations of a vague but wondrously lovely afterlife, not to mention meatless Fridays? (I still resent no hot dogs on Fridays when I was a kid.) Don't religions deserve all the mockery we cynics can marshal against them?

I recommend you tune in to "Curb Your Enthusiasm" every chance you get and hope (but don't bother praying) for the defeat of blasphemy resolutions from the UN and conservative propagandists. 

If the UN resolution passed, would Richard Dawkins have been allowed to write, "Without religion a good man may do good things, and a bad man may do evil things. But for a good man to do evil things you need religion." What a loss this would have been - almost as regrettable as the loss to our humor index if Larry David had been intimidated by the UN and never went ahead with his delightful episode when he (accidentally) left a couple ladies convinced that Jesus had shed a tear in their bathroom.

Let's All Engage In A Bit Of Joyful Blasphemy

Robert Green Ingersoll said, this crime called blasphemy was invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able to take care of themselves. It is an epithet bestowed by superstition upon common sense. It is one of my favorite sentiments, along with this statement by Robert A. Heinlein: Of all the strange 'crimes' that human beings have legislated of nothing, 'blasphemy' is the most amazing - with 'obscenity' and 'indecent exposure' fighting it out for the second and third place.

Where do you stand on this matter? Do you support the tradition that we must not be allowed to discuss certain topics, or that criticism, parody or irreverence toward certain "special" issues should be forbidden?  Personally, I am deeply attached to freedom of speech, so I resist any attempt by individuals, governments or institutions of any kind, including religions, to proclaim certain topics off limits.

The term blasphemy, not surprisingly, is most often invoked by religious authorities to ward off criticism, challenge or irreverence about their beliefs, practices or policies. In many places and different times, offending a religious sensitivity would bring punishments, often of the most horrid nature.

For these reasons, I think it's wonderful that the Center for Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism are sponsoring a "Blasphemy Day" awareness campaign to promote resistance to any and all blasphemy enactments, whether public or private. The campaign Celebrate Blasphemy Day 2009 is designed to encourage free expression while making a mockery of the whole idea of such a thing as blasphemy.

Are you curious about how blasphemy is defined? Here it is, from Webster's: Blasphemy, a noun, is the act of denying or scoffing at God or God's alleged attributes. Well, scoff away, I say.

What could be more fun in dealing with this concept than a contest to poke fun at it. And that is precisely what the Center is offering - a contest. You might want to enter. To do so, simply make up a phrase, poem or statement that would be or would have been considered blasphemous. The only rule: Entries must be 20 words or less.

You won't be able to quit your day (or night) job if you win, as only five T-shirts are on offer. However, according to the sponsor's enticements, "the first place winner will also receive a mug imprinted with the winning phrase, recognition in Free Inquiry magazine, general publicity and, naturally, eternal damnation."

Submit entries to blasphemycontest@centerforinquiry.net

Dr. Don Ardell Rumored To Be Named Chairman Of President Obama's Death Panel

On August 14, the 500th edition of the ARDELL WELLNESS REPORT (AWR) was distributed.  From now on, AWR's will be written and released whenever the muse strikes, not weekly as has been the case for the past ten years.  And none too soon.  I have it on good authority that I am in line for an important new federal assignment - and I am going to need every waking hour to manage this awesome new opportunity.  

If "Obama-care" passes, I believe I will be offered the chairmanship of the Administration's innovative new death panel.  While the president has not promoted this feature of his reform proposals, most Americans are aware of the death panel idea thanks to a certain highly regarded Republican ex-governor who knows of wondrous things, as if guided by a higher power - or something.

As Chairman of the Obama Death Panel, I'll probably be entitled to a huge salary, a big office and lots of perks, but these baser incentives do not compel me to accept the position. I will step up to answer the call to serve because I see it as my duty.  The mission of the Obama Death Panel under my leadership will be to exploit every cost-saving potential in euthanizing the old and disabled.  Basically, we'll be pulling the plug on grandma - and we're not going to do any favors for grandpa, either.   Our work will save a bundle on Medicare. 

Who would object to giving patients opportunities to learn about options for "care" at the end of their lives?

However, since I AM a grandpa, some provisions for exemptions of certain kinds of geezers will be enacted. Anyone who favors open discussion of politics, sex and religion will be given favorable status, provided of course opinions expressed in these arenas conform to views embraced by decent, God-fearing Americans. Don't worry - as a certified reader of this blog, I'll put in a good word for you when you're summoned to appear before my panel.

I expect the death panel will be charged with identifying additional cost savings - look for incentives for abortion, infanticide and native deportations. Yes, native born deportations - why limit deportations to aliens?  The real savings will be in removing unproductive citizens who do not support the American way, love Jesus, watch Fox News, fly the flag and respect the true patriots left in this country, like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.  

All the best.

House Concurrent Resolution 131 (H. Con. Res.131) directs the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the national motto of "In God We Trust" in the Capitol Visitor Center. This is estimated to cost the taxpayers around $100,000.

According to its Web site, the current mission of the Visitor Center at the U.S. Capitol is to provide "a welcoming and educational environment for visitors to learn about the unique characteristics of the House and the Senate and the legislative process as well as the history and development of the architecture and art of the U.S. Capitol. Like the words carved in marble in the Visitor Center's Exhibition Hall, 'Out of Many, One,' the visitor experience will be an intellectual and emotional encounter . . . that will inform and inspire those who come to see the U.S. Capitol." H. Con. Res. 131 would pollute that experience with a divisive agenda having nothing to do with the values enshrined by our Founders in the Constitution.

The Pledge of Allegiance and the original national motto, E Pluribus Unum ("out of many, one") were unnecessarily altered during the 1950s in an ill-conceived effort to make religious minorities feel like outsiders to the national community. "Do we really need to spend another $100,000 to present a distorted image of America’s secular heritage?” All Americans, including the non-religious, have a right and obligation to participate fully in our nation’s politics. Both phrases represent an unmistakable attempt to confuse religious belief with patriotism, and exclude the non-religious from public life.

This bill is a distraction from the important agenda facing Congress and the American people. Instead of devoting time to divisive and unnecessary political posturing, Congress ought to focus its energy on the myriad pressing issues facing the nation, from health care to global warming.

Please urge your representatives in Congress to vote no on H. Con. Res. 131.

REAL wellness flourishes best, in my view, in a secular democracy, not a theocracy. Thus, when the pious cross the church/state lines of separation, it's the duty of all citizens to speak out in support of protect one from the other.

Why America Should Support A Gay Agenda To Help China Resolve An Unprecedented Demographic Crisis

If we read in the annals of China that several thousand years ago, five thousand people were fed on one sandwich, and that several sandwiches were left over after the feast, there are few intelligent men who would credit the statement. But many intelligent people, reading a like story in Hebrew, or in Greek, or in a mistranslation from either of those languages, accept the story without a doubt.

Robert G. Ingersoll, Myth and Miracle, 1885

If we today exhibit the same skepticism toward news out of China as Ingersoll credited to the men and women of his time regarding a certain miracle account, we will readily dismiss a news item about China concerning gender imbalance. However, unlike the mind-boggling claims for multiplying  fish sandwiches from Hebrew and Greek sources, the tale I’m about to reveal is quite demonstrably true. After all, it appeared not as an urban legend e-mail, but as a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal!  (See Mei Fong, "It's Cold Cash, Not Cold Feet, Motivating Runaway Brides in China," Wall Street Journal, June 5, 2009, A1.)

Here is the basic story. According to Mr. Fong, an Asian sector reporter for the WSJ, there are 32 million more males under the age of 20 in China than females. A large number are in or near marrying age. The guys are looking around and finding slim pickings. The figures reported are based upon the 2005 China census, and were published in the May edition of the British Journal of Medicine. What this means is that a horny young male surplus approximately the size of Canada's entire population is getting mighty restless, and cold showers can only go so far in relieving tensions, if you get my drift. These people are thinking about their future and their families are adding to the pressure by asking questions, such as “Why don’t you find yourself a mate? Are you planning on living at home forever?”

In short, a gender crisis due to the country’s Draconian 30-year one-child policy has created a serious problem, one that adds to the nation’s many other problems. (These include but are not limited to an impending nationwide water shortage, high unemployment due to mass migrations from rural to urban centers, poor grain production, wide income gaps, excessive energy consumption, wasting of natural resources and environmental pollution—plus the fact that the government remains a totalitarian dictatorship blocking personal freedoms and abusing human rights.) The population control policy, combined with the fact that cultural norms in China highly valued male babies, created the disastrous social perturbation now tormenting young Chinese males.

So, what is China to do?

Before offering my gay agenda solution, I should mention that a new profession has opened up for ethically-challenged young women—that of bride for a week or so. It seems that the traditional dowry paid by the groom’s family has skyrocketed in value. The going rate for a bride is now about $5,500—that’s 38,000 yuan, enough to lure cartels of bride traders into existence to prey on the smitten husband marks.

The solution is to go around the predatory females. This is simple enough if the Chinese are willing to overcome their prejudice against homosexuality. All they have to do is embrace what the Family Research Council in this country has called “the hidden gay agenda” since 1992. Others, such as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (in a dissent in “Lawrence v. Texas”), call this nefarious conspiracy simply as “the homosexual agenda.” Either way or some other way (term), this entails (among other things) “eliminating the moral opprobrium traditionally associated with homosexual conduct.” Well, I’m all in favor of that—who needs opprobrium associated with anything involving people engaging in whatever it is they want to engage in that is no business of others, and that affects none other? That seems like a good thing to me. If the Chinese males can find happiness among themselves without any of that opprobrium nastiness following them around, well, who could object? Does China have a population of Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson/James Dobson/Rick Warren troglodyte types?

Other goals that our own Christian Right attribute to this nefarious agenda are universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies. I think all of these agenda items are highly desirable. Don’t Christian and other sectarian schools indoctrinate children? If the gays want to have a go at trying to do what religions have always and continue to do, well, that seems fair enough. I certainly favor an agenda, gay or otherwise, in this country, China and elsewhere, that seeks to
promote acceptance of any lifestyle one chooses—that’s the kind of thing you expect in a free society. I definitely favor discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality and I would love to muzzle violations of church/state separation by the clergy and Christian media. Finally, I want everyone to have the kind of equal rights that are enshrined in our own Constitution, including the young males (and those two-timing, absconding young females) in China. 

These supposed scary aspects of the boogeyman “gay agenda” sound pretty good to me, and I’m not even gay, not that there’s anything wrong with that, as we learned watching Seinfeld a few years ago.

So, my Well Infidel recommendation to Chinese youth: Consider switching teams. After a while, those inflated dowries will come down in cost and the brides may decide to stick around, if there are any young Chinese males still interested in them.

Be well.

Let's Offer Education In The Fundamentals of Reason As A Focus Of Foreign Aid

Americans believe many foolish things, and are in no position to urge people in other nations to think sensibly, develop respect for and a basic understanding of science and avoid grotesque forms of superstition. But, we should do it anyway, at least with respect to the beliefs and practices of many tribes that inhabit the continent of Africa. This is so important it should be a focus of our foreign aid offerings.

I believe our president, as he prepares to leave America for a visit to Africa, should address these issues as part of the continuing war on religious extremists who terrorize and destroy. American foreign aid should be used to promote reason as part of assisting the poor in backward nations to become better humans.

Much of reason education could advance common decencies and secular ethics. We should offer substantive alternatives to those who, caught up in centuries of extreme ignorance, engage in and tolerate atrocities occasioned by belief in witchcraft, superstition, and malevolent magic. Such cultural norms continue to block social and economic progress throughout the African continent.

American foreign aid can counter and help dispel these tragic African cultural practices with social as well as economic development assistance. We must teach rational thought, reason, modern science and sound secular experience.

There is a private group already doing this kind of thing, but our national government could do so much more. The Center for Inquiry, an international organization dedicated to education, reason, and secular ethics (based in Amherst, New York), is leading the way to promote this agenda.

The Center has launched a campaign consisting of educational seminars, protest marches, communiqués and meetings with African and other officials, letter-writing movements and aggressive widespread consciousness-raising efforts. Their work deserves support.

One of the Center’s educational workshops is set for Cape Town, South Africa from August 29-30; another is scheduled in Lilongwe, Malawi on September 4-5. Both will highlight humanism as an alternative to witchcraft.

Norm R. Allen Jr., executive director of African Americans for Humanism and the Center for Inquiry/Transnational Programs, is a key figure in these campaigns. He has been quoted as follows in Center literature:

"What African humanists and skeptics are doing is uncompromisingly challenging these harmful ideas and offering a humane and rational alternative, drawing upon humanistic ethics and an appreciation for scientific methods of investigation.

"It is clear that “superstitions—including belief in witchcraft—are based on fear, magical thinking and inadequate education, and are regularly exploited in Africa by unscrupulous individuals in positions of influence. Through the centuries, superstitious beliefs in Africa have been—and continue to be—used to oppress women, abuse children, support racism and xenophobia, justify torture, murder and genocide, and to exploit the poor, the weak and the aged. Those decrying accused ‘witches’ still orchestrate death and destruction of lives and property for the benefit of their own power. These unfounded beliefs are being used as a tool to incite hatred and cause division and conflicts in families and communities across the continent. In Angola, Malawi, Nigeria, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, those accused of witchcraft have been murdered, tortured or banished by their communities—often by their own families. Left unchallenged, the harmful, dark and destructive effects of superstitious belief have become common and recurrent problems in Africa.”

It was not so long ago that a candidate for Vice-President of the United States was associated with the machinations of a demon-chasing preacher practicing an African form of witchcraft. Hard to believe but true.

The appearance at the Wasilla Assembly of God in 2005 of Thomas Muthee from Kiambu, Kenya was marked by prayers for (and over) Palin. Muthee called upon Jesus to propel Palin into political office (governor of Alaska). Muthee also called on Jesus to protect Palin from "the spirit of witchcraft." How ironic. Muthee gained fame with Palin’s religious congregation by claiming to have defeated a local witch in his African region, one “Mama Jane,” in a great spiritual battle, and in the process liberated the town from sin while putting out a welcome mat to the spirit of Jesus.

We should probably divert some of the educational foreign aid designed to fight witchcraft and promote rational thought, reason, modern science and sound secular experience to small towns in Alaska, like Wasilla.

For more on the Center's campaign against witchcraft, superstition and the like, contact Leo Igwe at skepticleo@yahoo.com, skepticleo@yahoo.com or humanistleo@hotmail.com or nallen@centerforinquiry.net.

The Society for Women and AIDS in Africa can also provide assistance.  Visit the Center for Inquiry website at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/.

Speculating On The Future Of Religion - Animated By A Bit Of Wishful Thinking

Recently, Daniel C. Dennett and I have been pondering the future of religion. Will the influence of organized religion grow or will it die off, at long last, as wishful thinkers in the free-thinking communities have hoped for ages?  Or, might some other scenarios come to pass. Dr. Dennett's musings have been, of course, more creative, profound, thorough and deservedly attended than mine, so I'll summarize a few of his observations on the topic for your consideration.  All of the ideas noted in this summary are taken from his acceptance speech at the annual Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) awards dinner held in Chicago on October 10, 2008. 

Dr. Dennett sketched five possibilities: 

1. A religious fervor will sweep the planet.  When this happens, say goodbye to Enlightenment values, especially if one religion gains sway over all the others.  I wonder what would be worse - universal Christianity, or the Caliphate dream come to pass for Islamists?  That's like asking what's worse - being shot in the butt or hung by metal hooks - upside down?  I'd prefer a few additional, gentler choices (e.g., left alone).

2. The end of religions.  Dennett suggested St. Peter’s Square and the Vatican could be transformed into the European Museum of Roman Catholicism.  He mentioned Mecca becoming the Magic Kingdom of Allah.

3. Religions transformed as harmless sports teams.  The teams would have no dogmas, creeds or claims to know anything - but they would have cheerful songs, colors, symbols and pageantry.

4. Religions as cults - basically bad habits of an underclass, something like the way smoking is viewed today. As Dennett noted, "it will be considered bad form to draw attention to the fact that somebody is religious."

5. Judgment Day appears out of nowhere!  The fundamentalist crazies were right - here comes the Rapture.  All is lost - we're all toast.

Dennett termed three of the scenarios quite benign. The fifth he called "a nonstarter. We don’t have to worry about that."
The worry related to this preposterous scenario is, in reality, the behavior of those who want to make Armageddon happen.

Naturally, nobody knows what will happen, though change for better or worse is likely.  However, it's always wise to encourage everyone "to look under the hood of religion to see what makes it tick, so we can better think about what steps we might take to get the outcome we most want."

What does Dennet want?  He favors the study of religion to be taken as seriously as the study of other real and present dangers to the future of the planets inhabitants, such as global warming, the global economy, water and energy problems and all the rest.  

Key issues related to the future of religion that Dennett addressed included:

*  The very great need to persuade those who study religion and write about it to stop doing so with a "hyper-diplomacy, hyper-reverence, hyper-respect..." We don't do that with any other industry.  The deference must end. There should not be a free ride for religions. They should be scrutinized firmly and calmly - and honesly.

*  More research is needed.  For starters, how about a theory of religion?  What is it, how did it arise, how has it evolved, what it is today, what are the parts and how do they work?  Such questions have not been objectively answered by dispassionate investigators using modern tools of analyses. 

*  Introducing into the educational system a 4th “R.”  He wants compulsory religion, that is, compulsory education about world religions for children in public and private schools and in home schooling. This will inoculate our children to brainwashing into any one religion and lead children to critical thinking, since it will be clear that all religions can't be true and lead to doubt, skepticism and open inquiry.

*  A review of evidence that religion is not so much strong today as it is desperate. The leaders can no longer control education and access to information, as in the past.  Cell phones, transistor radios and the Internet have breached the natural barriers. Around the world, people and cultures are being flooded with western ideas, with American ideas, with American technology and all the ideas that come with them. To us, its all harmless but to the control agents of religion, its toxic - the new communication technologies are wreaking havoc. In this fashion, they are starting to overturn ancient cultures.

*  "People are not ready to have their religion subjected to careful, calm, objective analysis and scrutiny. But we should change that, one step at a time."

It was a great speech, in which the above and a lot of other ideas were fully developed.  The entire talk is available at the FFRF website. 

Be well.

Mr. President, Build Up That Wall!

The pervasive violations of this country's long tradition of church/state separation under President Bush were unconstitutional then and remain so today. Alas, President Obama is expanding, not eliminating, government funding for "faith-based initiatives."  This is a great disappointment, as was his invitation to the gay-bashing, fundamentalist preacher Rick Warren to pray at the secular ceremony that marked the inauguration of our 44th president.  Any praying at this civic event in the life of our non-theistic Republic is inappropriate; the prayer by this particular god-talker was outrageous.

The faith-based funding is inappropriate because taxpayer dollars are being used to sponsor sectarian religious activities and beliefs. 

Government funding of faith-based programs should eliminated.  If religious organizations want to conduct social service programs, they are free to do so with their own money.

Also regrettable is the fact that religious organizations have access to the White House to lobby for faith-based human service initiatives.

Recently, according to the Center for Inquiry (CFI), a secular organization that supports church/state separation, a meeting took place between representatives of the CFI Office of Public Policy and other church-state separation advocates and senior staff at the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

CFI's reps expressed their concerns and disappointment over the new president's failure to repeal five Bush administration executive orders and numerous agency regulations and rulings that apply to the faith-based office. Those executive orders, regulations, and rulings permit faith-based programs to engage in religious discrimination -- using your tax dollars.

Unfortunately, it seems that President Obama will not act to prevent harmful discrimination by religious organizations that benefit from your tax dollars. Also, his plan for this illegal office fails to prevent the use of public money for construction and renovation of buildings used for religious worship. It does not bar religious organizations from proselytizing in publicly-funded programs.

While President Obama has said repeatedly that he believes in the separation of church and state. Those of us who supported him so enthusiastically might want to work hard to urge him to keep his word.

To learn what you can do, write to CFI c/o srook@centerforinquiry.net or call (716) 636-4869 ext. 427.  For more information about CFI (the source of much of this information), visit http://www.centerforinquiry.net/opp.

Be well.  Protect the wall!

A Wellness Perspective On Religion & Government - Mr. President, Raise Up This Wall Of Separation

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, with more than 13,000 members, is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics) in the United States. FFRF has been working since 1978 to promote freethought and to keep state and church separate.

The Foundation promotes freedom from religion with a weekly national radio show, a newspaper, a freethought billboard campaign and other educational endeavors, including scholarships for freethinking students. The Foundation acts on countless violations of the separation of state and church, and has taken and won many significant complaints and important lawsuits to end state/church entanglements and challenge the "faith-based initiative."

The FFRF offers a quiz entitled What Do You Know About The Separation of State and Church?  The quiz consists of 21 questions to test your knowledge of America's vital principle that protects those who choose religion and those who prefer none.  

Here are the questions, reproduced with permission.  Most are multiple choice; some invite true/false selections.  After perusing the questions, go to http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/ffrfquiz.php for a score, assessment and background on each of the questions.  

The average score (correct answers) is 12!  Since October 12, 2000. 28,090th people have taken the test.

Do well.  Think of the test as a learning experience, also, that will boost your awareness of this wonderful constitutional safeguard against creeping theocracy.

1. The U.S. Constitution says that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, based on the sovereign authority of God

2. How many times does the word "God" appear in the U.S. Constitution?

3. How many times does the Declaration of Independence refer to Christianity or Jesus?

4. The US Constitution guarantees religious liberty for

5. Where did the separation of church and state originate?

6. What does the First Amendment say about religion?

7. The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" originated with

8. Which early colonies practiced freedom of religion?

9. The Puritans escaped religious persecution and, in their own colony, allowed religious freedom for

10. ". . . the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"  Where does this phrase appear?

11. By an Act of Congress, U.S. currency has carried the motto "In God We Trust" since

12. The Pledge of Allegiance, first published in 1892, has included the words "under God" since

13. Who made the following statement?  "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . We need believing people."

14. In 1890, bible reading was outlawed from Wisconsin schools. Who was responsible?

15. The U.S. Supreme Court outlawed student-initiated prayers at high-school football games in 2000. Who were the plaintiffs in that lawsuit?

16. According to the "Lemon test," in order to be constitutional, a law or public act must:

17. All American Presidents have been practicing Christians

18. The U.S. Constitution says there shall be no religious test for public office

19. John Adams declared Christmas to be a national holiday

20. A president, being sworn in, is required to place a hand on the Holy Bible and say "so help me, God."

21. Since the First Amendment deals with "Congress," states are free to advance religion if they wish.

Go to http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/scripts/ffrfquiz_results.php for results.  Be well.

A Wellness Perspective On Religion & Government - Mr. President, Raise Up This Wall Of Separation

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, with more than 13,000 members, is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics) in the United States. FFRF has been working since 1978 to promote freethought and to keep state and church separate. The Foundation promotes freedom from religion with a weekly national radio show, a newspaper, a freethought billboard campaign and other educational endeavors, including scholarships for freethinking students. The Foundation acts on countless violations of the separation of state and church, and has taken and won many significant complaints and important lawsuits to end state/church entanglements and challenge the "faith-based initiative." The FFRF offers a quiz entitled "What Do You Know About The Separation of State and Church? The quiz consists of 21 questions to test your knowledge of America's vital principle that protects those who choose religion and those who prefer none. Here are the questions, reproduced with permission. Most are multiple choice; some invite true/false selections.  After perusing the questions, http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/ffrfquiz.php for a score, assessment and background on each of the questions. The average score (correct answers) is 12! Since October 12, 2000. 28,090th people have taken the test. Think of the test as a learning experience that will boost your awareness of this wonderful constitutional safeguard against creeping theocracy. 1. The U.S. Constitution says that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, based on the sovereign authority of God 2. How many times does the word "God" appear in the U.S. Constitution? 3. How many times does the Declaration of Independence refer to Christianity or Jesus? 4. The US Constitution guarantees religious liberty for 5. Where did the separation of church and state originate? 6. What does the First Amendment say about religion? 7. The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" originated with 8. Which early colonies practiced freedom of religion? 9. The Puritans escaped religious persecution and, in their own colony, allowed religious freedom for 10. ". . . the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"Where does this phrase appear? 11. By an Act of Congress, U.S. currency has carried the motto "In God We Trust" since 12. The Pledge of Allegiance, first published in 1892, has included the words "under God" since 13. Who made the following statement? "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . We need believing people." 14. In 1890, bible reading was outlawed from Wisconsin schools. Who was responsible? 15. The U.S. Supreme Court outlawed student-initiated prayers at high-school football games in 2000. Who were the plaintiffs in that lawsuit? 16. According to the "Lemon test," in order to be constitutional, a law or public act must: 17. All American Presidents have been practicing Christians 18. The U.S. Constitution says there shall be no religious test for public office 19. John Adams declared Christmas to be a national holiday 20. A president, being sworn in, is required to place a hand on the Holy Bible and say "so help me, God." 21. Since the First Amendment deals with "Congress," states are free to advance religion if they wish. Go to http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/scripts/ffrfquiz_results.php">http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/scripts/ffrfquiz_results.php for results. Be well.