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. 

I have been told on multiple occasions by at least two different people that if God asked them to murder me, they would do it without question. I suppose this is all in a day's work as a secular student activist, because my favorite instace of this was on Blasphemy Rights Day 2009 when a "mob of people" gathered in front of our school library, where I found myself in an impromptu debate in front of about 60 people. I always find it enlightening when people's convictions overpower social pressures. Interestingly, this was the first thing I thought of when I was sent today's Music Monday song of the week by a band by the name of Low called "Murderer".

"But, Cody," you say, "I did a Google search and found out that the members of Low are devout Mormons?" Then I'm all like, "Dude, I know right? I did the exact same thing. Isn't that a bummer? I quite liked the song, too, as it was was a clever rhetorical tactic to examine the nihilistic nature of Christian ethics. Wait what were those lyrics again?":

One more thing before I go

One more thing I'll ask you Lord

You may need a murderer

Someone to do your dirty work

Don't act so innocent

I've seen you pound your fist into the earth

And I've read your book

It seems that you could use another fool

Well I'm cruel

And I look right through

You must have more important things to do

So if you need a murderer

Someone to do your dirty work

So yes, I am not sure how to interpret this song and I will subjectively maintain that it is, in fact, commentary on religious ethics. I should also mention here that I struggle a lot with this dilemma. I will like a song, such as "I Used to Hate Cell Phones, But Now I Hate Car Accidents," but find myself with an uneasy feeling when considering the message. Regardless, my subjective experience of this song elicited a sense of ethical contemplation in a world where people claim to follow every command of God no matter where it may lead, and in that respect I hope you find value in this song. 

This is also a good time to note that the artists on Music Monday do not necessarily endorse the message or goals of CFI, and as always, if you get a chance, send your suggestions for future Music Mondays to me at chashman@centerforinquiry.net, leave a comment below, or @tweet us at @CFIOnCampus. Your suggestions, along with future and past songs, may end up in the official Course of Reason Music Monday Grooveshark playlist or Spofity playlist that anyone can listen to.    

The bill passed 28–22 according to a Courier-Journal article. Apparently some senators “raised questions about the measure’s constitutionality,” but the bill passed and is now on to the House.

I am hopeful that the bill will die, or be challenged and removed later, because precedent has proven over and over again that teaching “creation” as a scientific basis for life is unconstitutional and predicated upon religious belief. And, sorry friends, but promoting religion is still not allowed in public schools.

To learn more about evolution education, visit the National Center for Science Education. 

Note: I previously posted this interview, but would like to repost today with an update. Tabitha has announced performance dates for February and March. View the flier!

This week's interview is with Tabitha Esther. Tabitha is a scientist and artist who created the stage show Seas of Science to get kids excited about science and learning. Tabitha shares details for the 2012 shows, as well as how and why she decided to create an interactive show.

Listen here!

Related Links:

• Seas of Science on Facebook
• Visit their website
• Contact Tabitha

Learn more about CFI On Campus 

Email us with suggestions for future interviews.  

The song is called "Glory Hallelujah" can be found on his 2011 album England Keep My Bones. Frank Turner has quite the tour ahead of him, so if you like today's tune I would suggest trying to make it to one of his shows. However, notice that he is one of those weird people who write the shorthand for dates the "correct" way (DD/MM/YYYY). Enjoy! 

As always, if you get a chance, send your suggestions for future Music Mondays to me at chashman@centerforinquiry.net, leave a comment below, or @tweet us at @CFIOnCampus. Your suggestions, along with future and past songs, may end up in the official Course of Reason Music Monday Grooveshark playlist or Spofity playlist that anyone can listen to.    

Photo credit: NASA/NOAA/GSFC/Suomi NPP/VIIRS/Norman Kuring

The image above is home. It is the place where all but five hundred of the over ten billion humans have lived and will live their entire lives. It is the only place we know of that contains our scale of life. This place is amazing to us, for it gives us physical locations of shelter, warmth, chilling, cyclical seasons, and the chance for us to learn about its inner-most workings.

This is not a planet to us, but our figurative mother. It is the place we have called home, mother, savior, basket, and to some, God.

We are currently destroying our home. We are currently deconstructing the adventure of this planet's creation and evolution that has taken part for over four billion years. This is not a secret either, but a cold fact of our current existence. It is a side-effect of our selfish processes, and we are not transparent to the planet, as we should be.

Clearly it is foolish to expect that we, as humans, who: explore, break, change, break, learn, create, break, and improve everything in our lives could ever become transparent (or, cthulhu-forbid foster naturalistic processes) to this planet? Or is it?

We are able to create and manipulate data into new forms and constructs at a rate that is equal to the previous year's amount of creation and manipulation. (Read: exponential growth) We are not different from the systems we create, nor the systems which we experience, but part of those. Even more humbling is the fact that we are physically exchanging matter with those systems. From the most complex systems of galaxies spanning thousands upon thousands of light-years, to single celled bacteria, we are making exchanges with everything.

The counter-concept of this which seems to propagate so many human minds is an barrier of absolutes. It is not our abstractions of superficial importance which we impose on reality that dictate the truly powerful systems in our lives, but those systems which we often least understand have control over us.

I wish, beg, and plead with people on an almost weekly basis to become open to this train of thought. It is far less of a disturbance or shattering of your views than what you may think. However, it is a fundamental switch in how to function. A complete unwrapping of the world around you, and that's special. It's always a thrill to learn something (a)new. Just as other things may excite you, understanding the systems and their inter-connectivity is mesmerizing.

This post originally appeared on the UNI Freethinkers and Inquirers website.

Ahlquist

Despite winning the battle, Jessica has found herself stuck in the middle of a war between rabid religious ideologues and those who support a secular society, free from state sponsorship of any faith. Police in her Rhode Island town are investigating a number of threats against Jessica found online - surely only a fraction of the abuse hurled at her from the anonymous confines of the internet by grownups who consider themselves representatives of Christianity. This, from a faith that markets itself as being emblematic of compassion... It's a phenomenon as disturbing as it is unsurprising.

Equally disturbing but less expected is the most prominent of Jessica's naysayers: Her own state representative, Peter Palumbo. On January 12th, State Rep. Palumbo was a guest on the John DePetro Show and shared his thoughts on Jessica. His words?

"...What an evil little thing..."

Has there ever been a less appropriate reaction by a representative regarding a constituent, let alone a minor? I can't think of one. Truly, something is wrong here and Peter Palumbo needs to know it. I immediately emailed him, saying:

I am not represented by you, but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for speaking your mind on the Jessica Ahlquist issue. Your words were exactly what this country needs to hear right now. Thank you for laying bare how small-minded and hateful a healthy dose of "Christian love" will make a population. A grown man calling a high school girl an "evil little thing" for upholding the Constitution of the United States of America against the superstitions of its largest cult is precisely the image I believe Christianity deserves in this country. I look forward to seeing your likeminded constituents continue to vote for you in large numbers as an example of how base and inhuman a person of true faith can become. You, sir, are representative in more than title alone.

You are not my representative. In fact, I hadn't heard of you before today. And yet, in just a few words, you've made a lasting impression. How dare you call Jessica Ahlquist an "evil little thing". As a politician, you of all people should know that personal matters and political ideals are very separate things. It is clear that you disagree with Jessica on the issue of separation of church and state, but that disagreement does not speak to her moral character. I would venture she is a more upstanding and courageous individual than yourself -- certainly she would not abuse a position of power to make ruthless ad hominem attacks on members of the general public with dissimilar values. 

In the absence of a public apology, you will continue to represent to myself and others the sort of hatred and bigotry that is found at the intersection of religious belief and public policy. 

I hope it is within your capacity to take these words to heart.

Email State Rep. Palumbo yourself, let him know what you think of his attitude towards his constituent and the freedom of (and from) religion that is part of this country's founding principles.

The National Center for Science Education also reported on the bill (Senate Bill 89).

Indiana's Senate Bill 89, which if enacted would allow local school districts to "require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science," was passed by the Senate Committee on Education and Career Development on January 25, 2012. The vote was 8-2…

I know some other states have had similar bills proposed for 2012, so it will be interesting to see what the year brings. The CFI Office of Public Policy and The National Center for Science Education will keep us abreast of advocacy efforts and important news regarding these bills and others.

And last time I checked, creationism was still religion.

This post originally appeared on Skeptic Freethought. 

The word is "cunt."

According to the Online Etymological Dictionary, the word has been avoided in public speech since the 14th century, and considered obscene since the 17th.  Any news anchor in the country would be fired immediately if they were to use it to describe someone, and yet recently that particular word has been leveled at an unassuming 16-year-old from Cranston, Rhode Island.  Here's a taste:

Well that seems reasonable.

The person they're talking to there is Jessica Ahlquist, who has been in the news a fair bit recently.

Here's why:

Basically, there was a banner at Cranston West High School in Cranston, Rhode Island, that looked like this.

The issue there is that Cranston West is a public high school and thus, pursuant to separation of church and state (SOCAS) laws, is not allowed to use public funding to support one religion over another or the presence of religion over the lack thereof, and thus phrases like "our heavenly father" and "amen" are problematic.

Jessica went to the school administration and informed them that the banner was unconstitutional, and could they kindly take it down.  They ignored her.  She then went to the ACLU and told them about it, and the ACLU told the school that the banner was unconstitutional, and could they kindly take it down because the ACLU was willing to sue to have it removed.  The school administration decided, mainly because the district owed the city more than $6 million, that they would "research the issue further."  The superintendent, Peter Nero—also a practicing Catholic—seemed open to the idea of taking the banner down.

If people want to express themselves religiously, I would advise them to go to church,” said Nero. “I see a lot of empty pews next to me.”

But the banner stayed up by a school board vote of 4-3.  That was in December of 2010.  In April of 2011, the Rhode Island ACLU filed suit against the city of Cranston with Jessica as the lead plaintiff.  In the suit, she said:

The prayer’s presence in the school promotes and endorses the ideals of Christianity and the concept of a single “Heavenly Father”. I firmly believe that it should not be on display in a public school and is in direct violation of my and other students’ civil rights. As an atheist, I do not feel included in the message of the prayer; in fact, I feel excluded. And the public hearings that I have attended have added to that feeling — that my views and beliefs don’t count, or have less value than those of the Christian majority. I don’t feel that I or anyone else should have to feel that way at school. The prayer does not belong in a public school and that’s why I have come forward to challenge it.

She is, of course, absolutely right.  The law is the law, whether a majority of people decide that it should be broken or not.  Now, finally, the banner is down.  More specifically, it's covered up.

So that's that, right?  It's over.

And then the insults started rolling in.

Over the past few days, Twitter and Facebook have lit up with horrific insults, responses to those insults, responses to the responses, etc.  The worst of them, not by its content but by its source, came from Rhode Island State Representative Peter Palumbo, who called Jessica Ahlquist "an evil little thing" and followed it with, "Poor thing. And it’s not her fault. She’s being trained to be like that…she’s being coerced by evil people.”  That's an elected official at the state level saying, essentially, that atheists are evil.

But it gets worse.  I either took or compiled 56 screenshots of abuse directed toward her, and they seem to fall into a few categories.

Outright Insults

I know what your first question is, and the answer's no.  I do not know why none of these people is capable of taking a photo standing upright.  The point is that this is your typical angry outcry, ad hominem attack.  Not really any substance to it, and it's the kind of insult that just rolls right off.  Not too far from what's been leveled at me.  Anyway.

Threats

These are slightly more concerning, and I'm under the impression that disciplinary action is being taken.  These people aren't exactly criminal masterminds—I'm counting eleven people's real, full names—so I hope that was adequately addressed.  Threats of throwing shit, punching, beating up, stabbing, drowning, holocaust, cannibalism, crucifixion, and yes, ass-rape—those are serious.  That's not ok.

Missing The Point

These people aren't really a threat, they're just the entire reason this case came up in the first place.  Let's see what we've got here.

Infinitysidewaysheartmusicalnote Squaresquarecheckmark has a point.  I mean after all, what's the harm?  Why can't atheists just ignore the fact that they're being ostracized?  I mean, it's not like the people at the school are openly hostile…toward…atheists…umm…

Cammie Giarusso (here's her Facebook page) is falling into that usual trap of thinking that public opinion should decide whether the law is upheld.  Should we journey back to another historic court decision?  One that was almost universally disagreed with by the student body and state officials?  Let's do that.

On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that schools could no longer be segregated by race.  In Little Rock, Arkansas, nine black students decided that they wanted to go to school with the white students.  Not only did several segregationist groups blockade the front of the school, not only did the governor support them, but he called for the Arkansas National Guard to blockade the front of the school.  One of the students recounted that day:

They moved closer and closer... Somebody started yelling... I tried to see a friendly face somewhere in the crowd—someone who maybe could help. I looked into the face of an old woman and it seemed a kind face, but when I looked at her again, she spat on me.

 

Well, this is pretty simple.  Being an atheist is not illegal, nor is being ugly (which she's not).  Go through that last status and replace "atheists" with "Jews" and tell me how you think that would go over.

Again.  It's illegal.  I know you poor Christians only have 80% of the country's population, more than 95% of its government officials, every major holiday you want, billions in tax subsidies, and a mention of your God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on the money…it must be hard to be so oppressed.  I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA.

This Guy

Steve Jazz.  Steve has a question.

But that's not all.  When Steve's not being imbecilic, he also teaches history!

Sorry, that was still imbecilic.  My mistake.  But wait, Steve's still got his most salient point left to go.

I THINK that what he's trying to say here is that since the years of the calendar are based on the year of birth of Jesus, Jessica is secretly religious. Or something. So that's Steve.

Christians Defending Jessica

I don't have any screenshots of this, because as far as I can tell, they don't exist.  I went through the first ten pages of Google results and found atheists defending her, objective news reports, and bigots attacking her, but nothing from Christians saying, "You know what?  I love Jesus, and I love praying to him, but I respect that my religion is a private manner that should stay out of the public square, and that the Constitution mandates as such."  Not once have I seen that said, about any case like this.  Just like you never see moderate Muslims saying that suicide bombers are extremists who've gotten it wrong.

Here's Why I'm Not Surprised

A lot of the people who have reacted in Jessica's defense to this have taken the tack of trying to tell the Christians, "What's all this vitriol?  Shouldn't followers of Jesus be nice to everyone?  Didn't Jesus say 'love they neighbor' and all that awesome stuff?"

That's the mistake here.

You see, by Christian standards, Jessica Ahlquist is doomed.  She's blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, and there is no greater sin.  Not child abuse, not rape, not genocide (actually, the Bible seems to be ok with all that).  Nope, let's turn to Mark 3:28-29:

Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.

See what that means? That means that all those horrible things that everyone's saying are not only justified, but totally forgivable. God'll be fine with them. But when Jessica speaks against it, she can't be forgiven.

And that's not a unique verse.  Shall we see if the Bible addresses blasphemy elsewhere?

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ... he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. - Leviticus 24:13-16

All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men ... whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. - Matthew 12:31-32

And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. - 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.  And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. - Matthew 10:21-22

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.  For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. - Matthew 10:34-35

He that is not with me is against me - Matthew 12:30

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. - Mark 16:16

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - John 3:18

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. - John 3:36

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me - John 14:6

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned - John 15:6

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. - First Corinthians 2:15

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? - Second Corinthians 6:14

So I think that covers that. All those people who are surprised at the way Christians are reacting need to get their heads out of the sand. The New Testament and the teachings of Jesus are not books and sayings of love, nor do they preach tolerance. They espouse hate and bigotry. There are vile words spoken about homosexuals. Parents are encouraged to beat their children. Jews are blamed for the deaths of the prophets.  Jesus denies the right of a son to bury his father, and introduces the idea of thought crime—a man who even thinks about another woman in a sexual way has effectively already slept with her, and a man whose mind fills with anger is as guilty of violence as if he had raised a hand himself. Women must be subservient to men, and silent in church. Non-believers must be shunned.

And above all, a message of faith. When I say "above all," I don't use that lightly, as some lazy conclusion. I mean that the absolute most important thing in the entirety of the New Testament is that one hold the belief that Jesus is divine. There is no sin that cannot be forgiven if one believes, and no good deed that can earn one any credit without faith.

Do you see the conclusion we've come to? It's ugly, to be sure, and might cast your naive ideas that Jesus was a great moral teacher into a slightly dubious light. But it is the only conclusion to be drawn.

The fact is that this hatred toward non-believers isn't out of character. It isn't un-Christian, and it isn't forbidden by Jesus.

It's required.

This article originally appeared on the Secular Students and Skeptics Society website.