Remember candidate Obama’s 2008 speech in Zanesville, Ohio, in which he pledged to clean up then-President Bush’s Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives? Most vividly he called for an end of public funding for religious charities that discriminate on the basis of religion. Then, do you remember how President Obama, once elected, did nothing of the sort? Between those two points, Sher draws a disturbing—and if true, little known—connection:

“Obama’s signature faith initiative — the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships — exists today largely in the form that these conservative religious leaders demanded. Back in 2008, candidate Obama nearly spelled the end of a carefully cultivated alliance with some religious leaders when he pledged in a speech to fix the constitutional inadequacies of George W. Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative. These livid religious leaders extracted a promise from the campaign: Don’t make a fuss about the speech now, and Obama will not make the changes he promised.”

I wish I had more confidence that President Obama would absorb the lessons of this article. We seculars have a lot more coming to us than occasional mentions at the end of lists of religious people.

{link}

It appears that Kashgari has had to flee his country after Kashgari mused in a series of tweets about what his interaction with Mohammed would be were he to meet Mohammed “man-to-man.” These tweets emphasizing the human nature of Mohammed were too much for many of the faithful. They responded with tweets of their own—over 30,000— almost all of them harshly critical of Kashgari and many calling for his death.

Fortunately, in much of the West, one can deny the truth of the claims made by various religions without too many repercussions—although that may depend on the setting. But we shouldn’t take this right for granted. There are those who want to muzzle free expression to avoid “offense” against those with religious sensibilities. Indeed, the organization One Law for All is holding a rally in London on February 11 to protest recent efforts to suppress criticism of religion.

But, of course, it’s in the countries outside of Europe and North America, in particular, the Islamic world, where the greatest threats to free expression can be found. The most innocent comments about Mohammed can result in severe punishment, either through official sanctions or mob action.

We need to continue to protest this unacceptable suppression of the fundamental rights of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. And today I can’t think of a better way to do it then to state clearly and unambiguously that Islam is based on false beliefs. Spread the word: Mohammed was not a divinely inspired prophet and there is no Allah.

The bill, as introduced by Sen. Dennis Kruse (R-District 14), originally read that school boards and other authorized educational administrators could “require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.” It was amended by Sen. Vi Simpson (D-District 40) to read that: 

“The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology.”

Yet while SB 89 passed the Senate, several lawmakers in the Indiana House of Representatives are signaling that they will not consider the bill. 

House Speaker Brian Bosma (R-District 88) told the Northwest Indiana Times earlier this week that “delving into an issue that the United States Supreme Court has, on at least on one occasion, said is not compliant with the Constitution may be a side issue and someplace we don’t need to go. Parents, families have a choice on where their children go to school; it’s an increasing choice now due to the legislation we passed last year.”

Bosma was referring to state’s school voucher program, which the Center for Inquiry (CFI) finds troubling.

Meanwhile, House Education Committee Chairman Robert Behning (R-District 91) recently cast doubt on whether the bill was practical. “I think it’s almost impossible to find somebody who would know about all those different theories of creation,” he told the Indianapolis Star.

These concerns echo several of ours. The amended version of SB 89 was a supposed middle ground between religious and secular positions. But while it was certainly an improvement over the explicitly creationist version, CFI still had serious concerns, all of which I outlined here. 

CFI has been working on this bill from the very beginning. On January 18, we wrote to the ten members of the Indiana Senate Committee on Education and Career Development, urging them to withdraw or oppose SB 89. Our letter stressed that the bill was unconstitutional and in violation Edwards v. Aguillard, and faced a doomed yet costly court battle. CFI-Indiana Executive Director Reba Boyd Wooden also attended a public hearing just before the vote to read our letter aloud and field questions from the committee members. Despite our best efforts, the committee approved the bill 8-2, leading to the full Senate vote. We are now lobbying House members to move onto more important noteworthy and important matters.

We will continue to track this bill and keep you updated.

On January 31, Planned Parenthood’s President, Cecile Richards, sent an email with the news that Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation had “announced that it will stop supporting lifesaving breast cancer screening for low-income and underserved women at Planned Parenthood health centers.” They cited “politically motivated groups and individuals” as the sources that had “undermine[d] women’s access to care.” It was profoundly disappointing and disturbing news. I wondered, as many people did, why a group whose mission is to “save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find the cures” would want to cut off funding that went toward providing preventative care for low-income and underserved women.

The next day, February 1, Cecile Richards sent another message that thanked everyone for the outpouring of support that they had received in the wake of the Komen announcement. It included a link to a letter that pledged supporters would stand with Planned Parenthood, and I think it worked because I saw iteverywhere. Okay, it wasn’t up on telephone poles, but it was all over the internet.

That same day, The Los Angeles Times published an article by Amina Khan which discussed some of the problems with Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation hiring the “pro-life Christian” Karen Handel as vice president of public policy. “There’s no proof that Handel had a role in the foundation’s decision to end a relationship between two major women’s health organizations that’s paid for some 170,000 breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals since the groups began their partnership,” but the article points out that “Handel has made no bones about her anti-abortion—and anti-Planned Parenthood—position” and quotes a blog post Handel wrote that explained her pro-life and anti-Planned Parenthood stance.

One day later, February 2, Planned Parenthood sent a message that thanked their supporters again, specifically mentioning Mayor Bloomberg. Mayor Mike Bloomberg reportedly “made a generous offer to match donations to the Planned Parenthood Breast Health Fund” to the tune of $250,000. Some people do care about women’s health.

After getting tons of support, attention, and props for what they do, Planned Parenthood won. Well, I’d call it a win for Planned Parenthood, and for women. Cecile Richards sent a message on February 3 with the subject “BREAKING: Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation restores partnership.”The email saidl that Komen “announced that it will continue to make grant funds for breast health and education available to Planned Parenthood health centers.” Boom. Roasted.

I received an email from the WeAreUltraviolet campaign on February 6 which went into further detail about Karen Handel. They quoted a line that Handel allegedly said (which was cited in this HuffPo article): “If we just say it’s about investigations, we can defund Planned Parenthood and no one can blame us for being political.” Now that’s class. The Ultraviolet email urged supporters of Planned Parenthood and women’s health to sign a petition “telling Komen’s CEO that Handel must go.” That petition reportedly collected more that 37,000 signatures, and a similar petition by CREDO Action garnered 50,000.

With all of the criticism of Komen and Handel, and support for Planned Parenthood, it’s no wonder that Handel resigned on February 7. Forbes published her resignation letter.

Here is a mash-up of her statements with my thoughts (Handel’s in italics):

As you know, I have always kept Komen’s mission and the women we serve as my highest priority.

As long as they are Christian.

We can all agree that this is a challenging and deeply unsettling situation for all involved in the fight against breast cancer.

It is deeply unsettling that you care more about your own politics than the health of women, yes.

As you will recall, the Board specifically discussed various issues, including the need to protect our mission by ensuring we were not distracted or negatively affected by any other organization’s real or perceived challenges.

Perceived challenges are a bitch, especially when they are made up.

I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it.

Translation: I am deeply disappointed that people found me out. [Wario laugh]

What was a thoughtful and thoroughly reviewed decision – one that would have indeed enabled Komen to deliver even greater community impact…

Deliver even greater community impact by cutting off the icky parts of the community.

There is quite a bit more to the resignation letter, but those are the highlights.

So, that’s my run-down of the Planned Parenthood/Komen drama, but there’s even more good news! A California court overturned Prop 8!

Reuters reported that “an appeals court on Tuesday found California’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional in a case that may lead to a showdown in the Supreme Court.” The ruling is beautiful:

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

Supporters of marriage rights for same-sex couples know that this is definitely not the end, and not even the end for California. Several sources are claiming that it will likely lead to a Supreme Court case, whereas others believe that the Supreme Court justices may decline to hear it. I don’t know how likely either outcome is, but I look forward to hearing more, and for now, I am celebrating the ruling of Prop 8’s unconstitutionality.

I wish I had more to report on the Prop 8 ruling because it looks like it is less important than the Komen/PP results based on how much material I have listed. The truth is that it is definitely not lesser news; I just don’t have as much drama to share. I hope to learn more as the fight continues.

(Feeling angsty and in need of something to fire you up for activism? Read about the possibility of the Obama administration allowing for religious exceptions to birth control mandates in future health care plans.)

This post is also available at WeAreSkeptixx. 

Not much has been said in the atheist blogosphere about President Obama’s appearance and remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 2. Probably a couple of reasons for this. The appearance in itself is not really news. Sadly, this is just what our presidents, Democrat or Republican, do. Also, I sense that not a few atheists think Obama should be cut some slack on church-state issues—both because he’s better than any alternative (can you imagine President Gingrich?) and because some suspect that on ceremonial occasions such as the National Prayer Breakfast, he’s just going through the motions. However, having reviewed his remarks, I think they merit some comment.

First, however, let me comment on the sincerity of Obama’s profession of faith. During his remarks, Obama emphasized that he is a Christian and that he prays each morning. Some atheists have told me they’re convinced Obama isn’t really religious. He’s too intelligent. He makes the requisite obeisance to religion because it would be political death otherwise.

One interesting thing about this take on Obama is that it’s very similar to what many in the Religious Right say. They also think Obama is faking it—although not necessarily because they think he’s too intelligent to be religious.

But unless I’m shown convincing proof otherwise, I’m going to take Obama at his word. To begin, it’s just a prejudice to say that one can’t be intelligent and a believer. There are many different factors that can cause someone to be a believer. It is true that higher education is correlated with an increased level of religious skepticism, but not every one who graduates from Harvard Law School or who has a PhD in physics from MIT is an atheist. For many, religious belief is more of an emotional commitment than it is an intellectual one.

Anyway, there are two things I find noteworthy about Obama’s remarks. First is his emphasis on values, and how religious beliefs can motivate some (presumably including himself) to behave ethically. Nothing terribly new here. However, to the extent we need further evidence that one reason people cling to religion is that they (mistakenly) view it as providing a foundation for morality, the president’s remarks provide that confirmation. The supposed connection between religion and morality is, arguably, religion’s last line of defense, especially when religion is seen as they only secure foundation for morality.

Which makes one of President Obama’s remarks especially interesting, Although Obama does note religion’s alleged connection to values, he also suggests it is possible to have a secular basis for ethics. Specifically, he states, “I know the version of that Golden Rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs—from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato” (emphasis added). I’m not an historian of presidential speeches at prayer breakfasts, but it would not surprise me if this is the first time that a president has stated in such a setting that a secular philosophy can provide a foundation for ethics.

Being somewhat familiar with Plato, I’m not sure he’s the best example of a secular moralist, but leave that point aside. The important thing is that Obama has indicated that one can find a basis for morality outside of religion. Sure, it’s nothing more than a nod toward secular ethics, similar to the brief acknowledgement that he gave nonbelievers in his inaugural address. But it’s something. If atheists are ever going to gain acceptance and cease being second-class citizens, Americans must recognize that people can be ethical without reliance on religious texts or revelations.

Of course I’d prefer that the president not go to prayer breakfasts; I’d also prefer that he didn’t pray; and I’d strongly prefer that the president not seek moral guidance in what, objectively speaking, is an incoherent hodgepodge of taboos from barbaric tribes, self-serving edicts from priestly hierarchies, and a dose of commonsense morality—that is, from religious “ethics.” But if we have a president who’s religious—and that’s the likely reality for some time to come—it’s good to have one who at least realizes that religion has no monopoly on morality, and is willing to acknowledge that fact, even at a prayer breakfast.

The Woman in Black

Directed by James Watkins

In the new horror/thriller The Woman in Black, Arthur Kipps, a lawyer whose grief over his dead wife has put his career in jeopardy, is sent to a remote English village to sort out the affairs of a recently deceased woman. Upon his arrival, he learns that everyone in the town is keeping a deadly secret: the woman’s house is haunted by a ghost-the titular woman in black.

The Woman in Black shamelessly dips deep into the well of horror clichés, ladling on more fear and dread with each scene. The list is fairly comprehensive: creaking doors; spooky little girls in finery; candlelit faces; rocking chairs with unseen occupants; close-ups of creepy dolls; wall-scrawled scary message; the local, spooked oddball who turns out to be not so crazy; scary faces and handprints on windows; dark shadows moving in the background behind an unsuspecting hero; ghostly figures seen, then unseen a second later; and so on. 

While many of these are used to good effect, the film isn’t above cheap scares: there’s a few animals that jump or flutter out of the darkness-accompanied, of course, by a pounding, jumping score. (My rule of thumb is to give horror directors three such cheap-shock red herring freebies before I complain.)

The film’s gothic setting and scenery serve the story nicely. The woman’s house (situated somewhat strangely on a tiny island beyond a cold gray marsh) is ivy-covered and decrepit; the town is small, tight-knit, and superstitious. The era is relevant as well: Spiritualism and belief in ghosts was flourishing in England at the time, with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (creator of Sherlock Holmes) publicly endorsing mediums and séances.

I appreciated the film’s slow, deliberate pacing-this is a thriller horror film in the tradition of the classic Hammer Films, not today’s quick-cut slasher flicks-though the many scenes of Kipps exploring the house and grounds gets repetitive. For an apprentice lawyer who desperately needs to prove himself to his employers, he spend an awful lot of time doing anything but what he’s being paid to do. Instead of sorting through the dead woman’s effects in search of relevant legal paperwork, he’s wandering the house following weird noises and phantoms.

Daniel Radcliffe as Kipps looks a bit like a soulful Edgar Allan Poe in his black frock coat and pocket watch. The film is of course Radcliffe’s first non-Harry Potter film, and he seems to be doing his best to play against type. He’s a quite good actor in his own right, and well on his way to shedding Potter for good.

The script was adapted from a 1983 novel by Susan Hill, though the basic plot is ancient. From a folkloric point of view, the story is an interesting blend of ghost traditions from around the world, including the Irish legends of the banshee, a woman whose terrifying wail is a portent of death and doom. There’s also elements of La Llorona, the Hispanic Weeping Woman who drowned her children and returned as a vengeful ghost. He’s seen and heard calling and weeping for her babies, and is said to abduct and kill children.

Though The Woman in Black is good overall it falters a bit toward the end, as if the screenwriter wasn’t sure how exactly to wrap it up into a satisfying conclusion. It doesn’t give too much away to say that Kipps tries to figure out what the ghost wants so that her spirit can rest. This is of course classic ghostlore, and a scenario I have seen enacted during real-life ghost hunts by psychics and alleged ghost hunters. Given the rich source material The Woman in Black could have been better, but it’s a respectable ghost story. 

News broke yesterday that Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a well-known breast cancer charity, is no longer going to give grants to its Planned Parenthood affiliates because of “pressure from anti-abortion activists” and because “Planned Parenthood is under investigation in Congress,” according to this NPR article.

This is disappointing news. Planned Parenthood does a lot of good for women, especially in lower-income areas where they may not have access to a family physician. I thought that helping women was part of Komen’s mission. So why would Komen stop funding an organization that offered “more than 4 million breast exams over the past five years, including nearly 170,000 as a result of Komen grants?”

Susan G. Komen for the Cure claims that it is “the world’s largest grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and activists…working together to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find the cures.” It’s fine if they do not want to provide funding for abortion services, or other reproductive health services, because it is their right to focus on breast health. However, Planned Parenthood does a lot more than abortion services. According to their own numbers, only 3% of services offered are abortions, whereas 34% are contraception, and 76% of their services are focused on prevention (source). Doing nearly 750,000 breast exams each year, and having a patient demographic with 76% having incomes at or below 150% of the federal poverty level, what about this goes against Komen’s mission to “save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all” and so on?

Washington Post reported that “Komen said it could not continue to fund Planned Parenthood because it has adopted new guidelines that bar it from funding organizations under congressional investigations.” I remain skeptical of this explanation, but I also don’t know if this is a common “guideline” for any entity, so it could be true.

I understand that some people think abortion is killing a person, and that it is probably the worst thing a woman can do, so I know that this is going to continue to be an issue. I can’t just expect that everyone feels the same way about things that I do. Not everyone has the same kind of progressive values that Planned Parenthood and I have, but I can’t help but think that Susan G. Komen for the Cure is shooting themselves in the foot. They may be pleasing some people who are anti-abortion, but they are cutting themselves off from lower income and younger people who need medical services. They may find other organizations to be the receivers of Komen grants, but I doubt that Komen will be able to find any group that has such an extensive network of offices, contacts, and supporters like Planned Parenthood, and has the same mission to provide preventative care to all.

As a final note, I can say that I learned some new things about Susan G. Komen for the Cure out of this news. Mainly that they look for other charities that use “for the cure” in their names, and attempt legal action in order to halt the charities from using that phrase. There is a HuffPo article about it here. You may want to sit down.

This article is also posted on We Are Skeptixx.

SB 89 will now go to the Republican-controlled House, where its sponsors are Jeff Thompson (R-District 28) and Eric Turner (R-District 32)

The bill, as introduced by Sen. Dennis Kruse (R-District 14), originally read that school boards and other authorized educational administrators could “require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.” It was amended earlier this week when Sen. Vi Simpson (D-District 40) introduced new language that was supported by Sen. Kruse. The bill now reads that:

“The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology.”

The amended version of SB 89 was a supposed middle ground between religious and secular positions. Yet while it is certainly an improvement over the explicitly creationist version, the Center for Inquiry (CFI) still has serious concerns regarding the bill’s ambiguity, necessity, and language use. 

Sen. Kruse has said that “This [bill] does not do away with the teaching of evolution. This provides another alternative to evolution so our children are being exposed to more than one view, which I think is healthy for them.” But where and how would this take place? Would the approved bill allow science teachers to discuss religious creation “theories” in their classrooms after teaching confirmed scientific theories? Or is it meant to create a separate comparative religions course? If the latter, would the course be taught objectively? Or would religious doctrines be presented as alternatives to what children are learning in their science classes? CFI is not necessarily opposed to comparative religion classes that are objectively taught, but since the Senate rejected quality curriculum- and standards-forming measures proposed by Sen. Simpson and Sen. Luke Kenley,  the above questions remain unanswered. 

Furthermore, by using language such as "theories" and focusing specifically on the “origins of life,” the bill tries to avoid clear constitutional restrictions on teaching creationism as science by presenting creationism as an alternative to science. But religious stories are not alternatives to scientific theories, and should not be presented to children as such. Broadly speaking, science is a process that requires its participants to make claims based on, and testable by, empirical evidence. In comparison, creation stories are specific religious beliefs that require a leap of faith either in conflict with, or at least unsupported by, existing scientific evidence.

There also remains a question of the bill's necessity. As put by Eric Meilke of the National Center for Science Education, “I have trouble understanding why people think it’s necessary. ... If they want classes on philosophy or comparative religion, they can do that. There’s nothing that stops classes about religion, just don’t promote religion.”

We believe these concerns are especially salient given that the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Kruse, has said his sole purpose in introducing SB 89 was not necessarily better education or fairness, but to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard that outlaws the teaching of creation science in public schools.

The 20-minute Senate debate, which you can watch here, did feature two stirring defenses of the separation of church and state. Sen. Karen Tallian, (D-District 4) said that, “In my mind, this violates everything we stand for as Americans. I can’t even believe we’re even considering this. We made this decision more than 200 years ago. I speak for the Constitution, and the Constitution sheds a tear today that we’re even talking about this.” Sen. Tim Skinner (D-District 38) also expressed concerns about the bill’s constitutionality, and asked his colleagues, “If we get sued, who is going to pay for the lawsuit?” The answer: local taxpayers. 

Those sentiments echoed CFI’s work on this issue. On January 18, we wrote to the ten members of the Indiana Senate Committee on Education and Career Development, urging them to withdraw or oppose SB 89. Our letter stressed that the bill was unconstitutional and in violation Edwards v. Aguillard, and faced a doomed yet costly court battle. CFI-Indiana Executive Director Reba Boyd Wooden also attended a public hearing just before the vote to read our letter aloud and field questions from the committee members. Despite our best efforts, the committee approved the bill 8-2, leading to the full Senate vote on Tuesday.

CFI will continue its lobbying efforts in the Indiana House and hopes that lawmakers there are as responsive to, and representative of, our concerns as Sens. Tallian and Skinner, and the 20 other Senators who voted against this bill. We will keep you updated.

—

On an unrelated note, I find it mildly amusing that the bill has been condemned by, of all organizations, the Discovery Institute.

Indiana’s Senator Dennis Kruse has introduced a bill (SB 89) in the Indiana General Assembly to allow the teaching of “creation science” in Indiana public schools. In a report just released by the Fordham Foundation, Indiana is listed as one of just seven states that earned an “A” for its science standards. This has been the case for many years. Indiana has been a shining star in the midwest on the map of those receiving that rating.

Not only does he seek to erode the Indiana science curriculum at a time when state leaders are trying to encourage high tech/scientific businesses to locate in Indiana, he is planning to waste Indiana taxpayer’s money on costly lawsuits. When questioned about the constitutional issues involved, Senator Kruse replied, “This is a different Supreme Court. This Supreme Court could rule differently.”
He made these remarks both on the Senate floor and in interviews with reporters. He called evolution a “Johnny-come-lately theory” and that religious “theories” have more merit because they have been around longer than evolution. According to Senator Kruse, the Constitution does not contain any statement about Separation of Church and State. Well, of course, those exact words are not there but the concept is defined in the establishment clause in the first amendment.

I was in the Senate gallery yesterday and one of our CFI-Indiana Friends of the Center captured the discussion from the live feed on the General Assembly website. Incredible!!

SB 89 in its original wording was:

The governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.

On second reading an amendment was approved which changed the wording to:

The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology.

This version of SB 89 was passed by the Indiana Senate yesterday by a vote of 28-22. I was told in a conversation with a senator who was part of crafting and supporting the amendment that the intent was to make the bill unacceptable to the supporters of the original bill because they would have to include other religions and they were surprised when the proponents approved the amendment by acclamation the previous day.

What effect did this strategy have on the final vote? The sponsor of the amendment voted against as did others who had helped craft it. Senator Brent Steele told an Indianapolis Star Reporter that he voted against the bill because it included other religions. However, in a conversation I had with Senator Randy Head outside the Senate chamber, he told me that he would not have supported the original bill because of constitutional issues but voted for the amended bill because he thought it would not present these constitutional issues. In all, 10 Republicans, including Senator Steele, voted against the bill and one Democrat, Senator Lindel Hume voted for it. One of the Republicans who voted against it was my own Senator Brent Waltz. He had indicated earlier that he would vote against the original bill and voted against the amended bill. In an email reply to a person who contacted him, Senator Waltz stated, “Evolution is an accepted scientific fact and has been for almost a century. While good and honest people can derive different conclusions as to who or what began Life in the universe, the teaching of creationism should not be taught in Indiana schools.”

In the discussion, Senator Tim Skinner spoke against it primarily because of the precarious position in which it would put teachers and local school corporations. He asked very probing questions of Senator Kruse. Senator Skinner had raised the same concerns in the committee hearing and was one of the proponents of the amendment introduced by Senator Vi Simpson but both he and Senator Simpson voted against the amended bill. I had a very good conversation with Senator Skinner in the hallway outside the Senate chamber and he indicated to me that the intent of the amendment was to defeat the bill by making it objectionable to its proponents.

The best speech of the afternoon was made by Senator Karen Tallian. She nailed it and hit it out of the ballpark with a rousing speech in defense of the Constitution and Separation of Church and State. You can listen to her speech here. Among her remarks were that she couldn’t believe this was even being considered and that “the Constitution sheds a tear today that we are even talking about this.” I sent a note in to call her out to talk to her but it seems she had already left. I did email her and thank her very much for her support and ask for a copy of her speech.

Now SB 89 is headed for the Indiana House where it must undergo the same procedure as it did in the Senate. As far as I can tell, a committee hearing has not yet been scheduled. The House is not scheduled to reconvene until Tuesday, February 7.  We will be watching.

{link}

• Iron Lady. Biopic about former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, whose lifelong defense of conservative “values” is softened by this humanizing portrayal. It offers a haunting look at her declining years with her struggle against dementia, visits by her dead husband (hallucinated and so not ghostly), and—especially—her portrayal by Meryl Streep whose re-creation is stunning.

Rating: Three wooden nickels (out of four)

• A Dangerous Method. Exploring the relationship between psychology pioneer Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) and his foremost disciple Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender), this intelligent film’s central thread is woven by a Jung patient (brilliantly played by Keira Knightley). She suffers from “hysteria” but is ostensibly cured by Jung and ends up as his protégée and, unethically, his mistress. From brief scenes of Jung spanking her to erotic arousal, benefitting from the luxury of his betrayed wife’s money, and dabbling in paranormal speculation, the film concludes with the eventual break in their relationship, exacerbated by the unbalanced but bewitching former patient.

Rating: Three and a half wooden nickels (out of four)

• Albert Nobbs. The title character of this remarkable story is a woman passing for a man on a quest to fulfill a dream. It seems a modest dream, but in the realm of nineteenth-century Irish business—truly a man’s world—it is quite formidable. Albert fades into the role of a meek waiter in a classy hotel, but, as his dream begins to take center stage, life’s unscripted drama presents challenges he is ill prepared to meet. I should say no more except to point out that Glenn Close—having played Albert in a stage version many years ago—has long struggled to create this motion picture, for which she became co-producer, co-writer, and absolutely unforgettable star.

Rating: Three and a half wooden nickels (out of four)

• The Artist. This movie about movies loves film the way van Gogh loved paint. Film star George Valentin (Michael Dujardin) mentors a talented starlet (Berenice Bejo) who goes on to fabulous success in the new talking pictures. He is left trapped in the no-man’s-land of silent movies—literally so in this exceptionally witty, silent-film treatment that you wait (and wait, through his long despair) to break into sound and for him to reclaim his life. As he learns, someone has been secretly waiting for the opportunity to lend him a hand.

Rating: Four wooden nickels (out of four)