Judge Steve Bernard, with concurrences by Judges Alan Loeb and Nancy Lichtenstein, overturned a lower court decision, ruling in favor of FFRF’s challenge of Colorado Day of Prayer proclamations: “A reasonable observer would conclude that these proclamations send the message that those who pray are favored members of Colorado’s political community, and that those who do not pray do not enjoy that favored status.”

Bernard wrote that “the six Colorado Day of Prayer proclamations [2004-09] at issue here are governmental conduct that violate the Preference Clause [of the Religious Freedom section of Colorado’s Constitution].” The content is “predominantly religious; they lack a secular context; and their effect is government endorsement of religion as preferred over nonreligion.”

The proclamations “have the primary or principal effect of endorsing religious beliefs because they convey or attempt to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.” The 74-page decision noted that the “inclusion of biblical verses and religious themes,” statements urging “that individuals will unite in prayer” and the governor’s signature, imprimatur and seal make “no doubt here that the religious message is attributed to the Governor.”

Gubernatorial Colorado Day of Prayer proclamations unconstitutional

The lower court ruling that was overturned in this decision said that people wouldn’t think the Governor supported the ideas in proclamations he issued. Of course that reasoning is wrong.

A few years ago my local Humanist group asked the Columbus mayor to issue a proclamation honoring Charles Darwin Day. Why? So we could say the Mayor and the city supported Evolution.

Anyone who says they ask for the proclamation for no real reason are lying. The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed.

Related posts:

1. Ohio Prayer Protest a Success
2. National Day of Prayer not needed
3. Breaking News – Freedom From Religion Foundation sues President Bush

On this National Day of Reason, it was announced that Edwina Rogers, whose previous experience is as a Republican DC lobbyist, who also had worked for President George W Bush and former Senator Trent Lott, was hired as the new Executive Director of Secular Coalition of America. Naturally I was a bit concerned but after reading some of what she had to say about her new job, I think she will be fine as long as she sticks to the SCA agenda.

From 2001-2002, Rogers served as an Economic Advisor for President George W. Bush at the White House, at the National Economic Council, where she focused on health and social security policy. She also worked on International Trade matters for President George H. W. Bush at the Department of Commerce from 1989 until 1991.

Rogers served as General Counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 1994. She worked for Senator Lott while he was Majority Leader in 1999 and she handled health policy for Senator Sessions in 2003 and 2004. She practiced law in the Washington office of Balch and Bingham from 1991 until 1994.

In 1996, she was a Fellow at the Kennedy School at Harvard. Rogers received her B.S. in Corporate Finance from the University of Alabama and a J.D. from Catholic University in Washington D.C

She has been a regular contributor to several newspaper columns, health and policy journals and has appeared as a regular guest on cable news television channels including MSNBC and FOX News.

Edwina Rogers, Executive Director

That resume concerned me because President Bush and Trent Lott weren’t exactly friendly to members of the Secular Coalition. It did help me to learn Rogers applied for the job and the SCA didn’t go looking for a Republican to increase its lobbying cred.

Although hiring Rogers will do just that. Usually the religious right infested GOP would simply dismiss the work of SCA as liberal elitism anti-religion. Rogers is one of the few nontheistic Republicans I know.

Why the Secular Coalition?

I was drawn to the SCA because I believe that human rights are best protected by separation of religion and government—and unfortunately that separation is under attack recently. All sectors of society need to be included at the decision making table, and as of now there are 50 million secular Americans that are underrepresented and undervalued. The Secular Coalition and its member organizations have done a fantastic job of helping to raise the image of nontheists in this country. I plan to expand on what the SCA has already been doing and help take the organization to the next level. I was selected for this position because I am an expert in government affairs and a proven coalition builder. I am going to put my two decades of experience in Washington working for politicians and as a lobbyist, to use in effecting legislation—we want to see laws coming from both sides that are based on reason and logic, not religion.

Have you always been a secularist? How do you describe yourself and your beliefs?

I am a nontheist, but tend to shy away from labels, because I think they have a way of creating division within the movement. I have always been a firm secularist and an ardent supporter of the separation of religion and government. I am passionate about increasing the respect for nontheists in the United States and protecting the secular character of our government. I think that America is a place where there should be no religious test for participation in political life. I certainly feel that theists should be fully able to participate in public life—but no more than nontheists. I am not here to end religion.

How do you think your Republican background will play into your role here at the Secular Coalition?

My Republican background will help open certain doors that may have been closed to the secular movement before. It’s a misnomer that the majority of Republicans believe in the comingling of religion and government. The Religious Right is a vocal part of the Republican Party, but it’s also a minority. Most Republicans don’t necessarily agree with them, but may simply take a laissez faire attitude on that particular topic because they haven’t been engaged on the issues. If we aim to combat the political influence of those who want to see religion inserted in our secular government we will have to work with decision makers on both sides of the aisle—and I am uniquely qualified to help the Secular Coalition do that.

Q&A Interview with Edwina Rogers, Executive Director

Hemant Mehta has a longer more indepth interview on his website. the Friendly Atheist:

The Atheist Lobby’s New Executive Director is a Female Republican Strategist Who Used to Work for George W. Bush

This isn’t the first time a “liberal” group has hired a Republican to help deal with a conservative Congress.

Reading the comments from Mehta’s post reminded me that not everyone will think Rogers is a good fit. Just like the Focus on the Family/Pat Robertson Borg Collective, the atheist side has its party purity complainers. I agree with some of the comments that it is hard to be a Republican and support secularism since the majority of Republican work is anti-secularism as they pander to the religious right. The religious right may be a small vocal minority but the national GOP and state GOP parties pander to them all the time. Rogers comment about the right not being a real issue is a common GOP talking point that doesn’t fit the evidence.

SCA made a bold move hiring Rogers and I hope they hit a home run and that the more vocal critics hold back and see what she actually does rather than negatively imagine what she might do.

My eyes are wide open.

Related posts:

1. Secular Coalition calls for end to religious test
2. Secular scorecards for Congress released
3. Christian Coalition is shrinking

This past Easter Sunday (April 8th), NBC’s “Meet the Press” had a panel discussion about religion’s place in politics, a panel that didn’t include any atheist voices. Rev Billy Graham’s daughter Anne Graham Lotz provided a bumper sticker moment when she declared, contrary to the Constitution’s prohibition on religious tests for office, she didn’t think an atheist should be President. It brought to my mind a 1963 rant of Alabama Governor George Wallace who declared the 14th amendment illegal. It seems Lotz and Wallace are “birds of a feather” and it’s disgraceful she would express such a bigoted statement on national television. It is yet another reason to support strict separation of church and state.

The membership of the panel on “Meet the Press” reminded me of the all-male panel of witnesses for the recent birth control coverage hearings in the US House of Representatives. The MTP Easter panel had zero atheists. Not even a token agnostic:

MR. GREGORY: This morning, a debate about the big campaign issues, including the economy and health care, and insight into the strategies for the fall with Democratic Senator from Illinois Dick Durbin and Republican Governor of battleground state Ohio John Kasich. Then faith in politics. Getting the balance right in this election year amidst controversy over religious liberty. With us this morning, His Excellency Bishop William Lori, archbishop-designate of Baltimore; founder of AnGeL Ministries and daughter of the Reverend Billy Graham, Anne Graham Lotz; chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and United Methodist pastor Democratic congressman from Missouri, Emanuel Cleaver; Republican congressman from Idaho, Raul Labrador, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and author and executive editor at Random House, Jon Meacham.

Meet the Press 04/08/2012 Examining the economy, the general election and religion in America

Anne Graham Lotz had the statement of the show when she declared:

“I would not vote for a man who was an atheist because I believe you, you need to have an acknowledgement, a reverence, a fear, for almighty God, and I believe that’s where wisdom comes from.”

Some will be reminded of the statement President George H. W. Bush made in 1987 while running for President. He was Vice President at the time:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I’m pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on atheists.

Can George Bush, with impunity, state that atheists should not be considered either citizens or patriots?

But Lotz statement also reminded me of the late Governor of Alabama George Wallace who ran on a segregationist platform in the early 1960′s. In his 1963 Inaugural Address he not only made the historic statement “. . and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever” but he also said this about the 14th Amendment:

There were no government handouts, no Marshall Plan aid, no coddling to make sure that our people would not suffer; instead the South was set upon by the vulturous carpetbagger and federal troops, all loyal Southerners were denied the vote at the point of bayonet, so that the infamous, illegal 14th Amendment might be passed.

Yes Wallace believed the 14th Amendment, the one that made African-Americans officially citizens and therefore were able to vote, was illegal.

Anne Graham Lotz talking about not voting for atheists is like 1960′s era George Wallace talking about not letting African-Americans vote.

I think it’s disgusting for anyone to single out a group of people for 2nd class status whether the people are atheists, gay, or African-Americans. I am extremely disappointed in NBC for allowing such bigoted remarks by Lotz to be made on national television.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Related posts:

1. Putting Reagan’s Church & State Quote In Context Shows A Hypocrisy
2. JFK: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute…”
3. Some teachers in one Virginia school district reject church state separation

“We establish no religion in this country. We command no worship. We mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are and must remain separate.” – Ronald Reagan

It is part of a larger speech President Reagan gave at Temple Hillel in Valley Stream, NY on October 26, 1984:

We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.

At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral. And government should not make it more difficult for Christians, Jews, Muslims, or other believing people to practice their faith. And that’s why, when the Connecticut Supreme Court struck down a statute — and you may not have heard about this; it was a statute protecting employees who observed the Sabbath. Well, our administration is now urging the United States Supreme Court to overturn the Connecticut Court decision. This is what I mean by freedom of religion, and that’s what we feel the Constitution intends.

Reagan Speech to Temple Hillel and Community Leaders in Valley Stream

I agree with 99% of what he says here about the separation of church and state. I firmly believe it “requires government to be strictly neutral.”

I was curious about the Connecticut court case Reagan mentions in the last paragraph. It must be some massive burden on people trying to freely practice their religion.

Reagan was wrong to support keeping the law.

The US Supreme Court upheld the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling that struck down the statute. Their decision said:

Held: The Connecticut statute, by providing Sabbath observers with an absolute and unqualified right not to work on their chosen Sabbath, violates the Establishment Clause. To meet constitutional requirements under that Clause, a statute must not only have a secular purpose and not foster excessive entanglement of government with religion, its primary effect must not advance or inhibit religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602. The Connecticut statute imposes on employers and employees an absolute duty to conform their business practices to the particular religious practices of an employee by enforcing observance of the Sabbath that the latter unilaterally designates. The State thus commands that Sabbath religious concerns automatically control over all secular interests at the workplace; the statute takes no account of the convenience or interests of the employer or those of other employees who do not observe a Sabbath. In granting unyielding weighting in favor of Sabbath observers over all other interests, the statute has a [p704] primary effect that impermissibly advances a particular religious practice. Pp. 708-711.

Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. (1985)

Basically the courts found that a law that allowed employees to not work on days they claimed were their Sabbath violated the religious freedom of the employers, other employees who didn’t follow that faith, and allowed the state to override all secular interests at the workplace.

President Reagan’s support of the law totally contradicts what he told Temple Hillel about the government being required to be neutral in church/state issues.

The quote is valid and I agree with it even though Reagan was speaking out both sides of his mouth.

I will use the quote image and pass it on to religious conservatives bitching about not being able to control laws and the government with biblical principles.

Related posts:

1. Some teachers in one Virginia school district reject church state separation
2. Separation of Church and State – The Sports Analogy
3. What Does Religious Freedom Day Really Mean?

Bishop Blair, the keynote speaker at the noon rally, said he perceives a “very frightening” erosion of religious liberty in America today that poses a threat to all religions and volunteer groups, not just the Roman Catholic Church.

“First of all, it’s not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but all of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs might be next on the block,” the bishop said.

And it’s not about access to contraception, Bishop Blair asserted, adding that “contraception is ubiquitous and inexpensive in our country even when it’s not provided by the church’s hand or with the church’s funds.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has been strident in its opposition to the health-care mandate ever since the Department of Health and Human Services issued the new rules on Jan. 20 as part of the Affordable Care Act. One point of contention is the government’s limited exemption for the coverage, affecting only religious groups that hire and serve those who share the same religious beliefs. That excludes the vast majority of Catholic hospitals and universities.

500 rally to oppose health-care mandate

Bishop Blair, like all the people who are protesting, don’t understand how health insurance or the mandate works. The mandate doesn’t force nuns or other Catholics to *USE* contraception although surveys show 98% of catholic women do use it. Also Catholics and non-catholics who work for catholic hospitals and universities pay into their insurance plans so covering contraception should be part of the plan – that is all the mandate is mandating. It’s to allow women who wish or need to use contraception the ability to get it without paying a co-pay (the out of pocket part of the cost most insurance plans require these days).

Contraceptive use is essentially universal in the United States: Ninety-eight percent of sexually experienced American women have used a method at some point in their lives. However, many women face problems in using contraceptives or using them consistently. Among the 43 million women at risk of an unintended pregnancy in 2002, 6% did not use a method all year, 10% had a gap in use of at least one month and 19% reported inconsistent use (e.g., skipped pills). This behavior has clear consequences: The one-third of women who do not use a method or who use one inconsistently account for 95% of unintended pregnancies.

Although there are myriad reasons behind these distressing statistics, cost is one important barrier. Brand-name versions of the pill, patch or ring can cost a woman upwards of $60 per month if paid entirely out-of-pocket, not including the cost of a visit to a health care provider. Long-acting or permanent methods, such as the IUD, implant or sterilization, are most effective and cost-effective, but can entail hundreds of dollars in up-front costs.

These costs affect individual women’s behavior. A national survey from 2004 found that one-third of women using reversible contraception would switch methods if they did not have to worry about cost; these women were twice as likely as others to rely on lower-cost, less effective methods. According to another recent study of 10,000 women in the St. Louis area, when offered the choice of any contraceptive method at no cost, two-thirds chose long-acting methods—a level far higher than in the general population. Findings like this help explain why rates of unintended pregnancies are far higher among poor and low-income women than among their higher-income counterparts.

Insurance coverage is designed to help people overcome these financial barriers. One-quarter of uninsured Americans went without needed care in 2009 because of cost, versus 4% of privately insured adults. And according to three recent studies, lack of insurance is significantly associated with reduced use of prescription contraceptives.

Yet, cost-sharing poses a significant problem even for women who are insured. A 2010 study found that women with private insurance that covers prescription drugs paid 53% of the cost of their oral contraceptives, amounting to $14 per pack on average. What they would pay for a full year’s worth of pills amounts to 29% of their annual out-of-pocket expenditures for all health services.

The Case for Insurance Coverage of Contraceptive Services And Supplies Without Cost-Sharing

The greater good – a secular good – is to provide coverage and many Catholic universities and hospitals already cover contraception in their health insurance plans and 28 states require coverage as well.

Real Religious freedom would be not allowing the Bishops, nuns, and other religious people to force themselves into the private personal health matters of other people under the religious freedom ruse.

After observing the number and energy in the protests, just imagine what could’ve happen if the Catholic Church had worked this hard to safe guard all the children who were abused over the years by priests and nuns?? Somebody’s priorities are mixed up.

No related posts.