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.

As Judge Stephen Reinhardt rightly stated in the court’s 2-1 decision, “Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted. All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same sex-couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation ‘marriage.’ Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California.”

You can read the court’s full ruling here. 

CFI has been a leader in the fight for marriage equality for years, and supports the court’s decision as fair and just. It is a pivotal step forward in the national marriage equality movement. 

“LGBT individuals are entitled to the same rights as anyone else,” said Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry. “Marriage is an important institution in our society. Denying same-sex couples the right to express their love through marriage is to deny them equal protection under the law as well as a fundamental human right.”

CFI would also like to applaud the appeals court for rejecting the argument that the federal district court’s decision was invalid on the grounds that Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the case because, as he subsequently disclosed, he was in a same-sex relationship. The appeals court ruled that being gay did not disqualify Judge Walker from ruling on the case any more than being heterosexual would have disqualified him.  

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.

Senate Bill 89, passed 8-2 by the Committee on Education and Career Development, will now go to the full floor of the Indiana Senate.

Committee members who voted for SB 89 included the bill’s lead sponsor and committee chair Dennis Kruse (R-District 14), Carlin Yoder (R-District 12), Jim Banks (R-District 17), Jim Buck (R-District 17), Luke Kenley (R-District 20), Jean Leising (R-District 42), Scott Schneider (R-District 30), and Frank Mrvan Jr. (D-District 1). Earline S. Rogers (D-District 3) and Tim Skinner (D-District 38) voted against the bill.  To contact these senators, click here.

CFI previously wrote to the ten members of the committee urging them to withdraw or oppose SB 89. Our letter, which stressed that the bill is clearly unconstitutional and in violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard, was signed by Ronald A. Lindsay, President and CEO of the Center for Inquiry; Reba Boyd Wooden, Executive Director of CFI-Indiana; and myself.  To download and view our letter, click here.

Yet while the bill did pass, it did not go through without a fight. Wooden (pictured above) attended a public hearing just before the vote to read our letter aloud and field questions from the committee members. You can read news coverage of Wooden’s testimony here and here, watch part of her testimony here, and watch her answer questions here.

Joining Wooden in speaking against the bill were: John Staver, professor of chemistry and science education at Purdue University; Chuck Little, executive director of the Indiana Urban Schools Association; David Sklar, the Director of Government Relations for the Jewish Community Relations Council; the Reverend Charles Allen, a chaplain for Grace Unlimited, a campus ministry in the Indianapolis area. 

We will continue to track this issue and let you know when the Indiana Senate plans to vote on SB 89. 

The Center for Inquiry considers this an important step forward for reproductive rights. Free coverage for safe, preventative health care allows women to control their reproductive systems. Moreover, contrary to the rule’s opponents, the rule in no way restricts the free exercise of religion.

The new guidelines had faced fierce public opposition from organized religion. Most notably, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbied the HHS to either eliminate the new guidelines or widely expand the current exemption clause – which now covers employers whose main purpose is to promote religious doctrine – to also include religious hospitals, charities, and universities. Ultimately, Obama and HHS rejected these efforts.

Unfortunately, HHS has provided a one-year compliance exemption for religious hospitals, charities, and universities. This means that hundreds of thousands of women will be left without reproductive health coverage until August 2013 simply because of their employer’s religiously motivated objections. CFI sees no compelling reason why organizations with secular purposes ought to receive any exemption from the law.

Nonetheless, CFI considers this a victory, and commends the Obama administration for basing its health care laws on science and reason, not religious belief.

In response to this outrageous and unconstitutional proposal, the Center for Inquiry (CFI) today wrote to the ten members of the committee urging them to withdraw or oppose SB 89. Our letter was signed by Ronald A. Lindsay, President and CEO of the Center for Inquiry; Michael De Dora, Director of CFI’s Office of Public Policy; and Reba Boyd Wooden, Executive Director of CFI’s branch in Indianapolis.

To download and view our letter, click here.

The Committee on Education and Career Development consists of Sen. Dennis Kruse (chair and lead sponsor for SB 89), Sen. Jim Banks, Sen. Jim Buck, Sen. Luke Kenley, Sen. Jean Leising, Sen. Frank Mrvan, Sen. Earline Rogers, Sen. Scott Schneider, Sen. Tim Skinner, and Sen. Carlin Yoder. To contact these senators on your own, click here.

A federal judge has ordered Cranston High School West in Rhode Island to immediately remove a Christian prayer banner (right) hanging on the school’s auditorium wall, according to the Providence Journal.

The case, argued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), was especially notable for the Center for Inquiry because it was brought on behalf of CFI-On Campus volunteer high school coordinator, Jessica Ahlquist, and her father, Mark.

In his 40-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald R. Lagueux rejected Cranston’s argument that the banner, which had been in place since 1963, should remaing hanging as a matter of “tradition.”

No amount of debate can make the School Prayer anything other than a prayer, and a Christian one at that. ... The Prayer concludes with the indisputably religious closing: ‘Amen;’ a Hebrew word used by Jews, Christians and Muslims to conclude prayers. In between, the Prayer espouses values of honesty, kindness, friendship and sportsmanship. While these goals are commendable, the reliance on God’s intervention as the way to achieve those goals is not consistent with a secular purpose.

The Court refrains from second-guessing the expressed motives of the Committee members, but nonetheless must point out that tradition is a murky and dangerous bog.  While all agree that some traditions should be honored, others must be put to rest as our national values and notions of tolerance and diversity evolve.  At any rate, no amount of history and tradition can cure a constitutional infraction.  The Court concludes that Cranston’s purposes in installing and, more recently, voting to retain the Prayer Mural are not clearly secular

Ahlquist first raised concerns about the banner in August 2010, when she tried to reason with the administration on the inappropriate nature of the sectarian banner. The school refused to consider her concerns, forcing Ahlquist to pursue legal action. Lagueux released his ruling yesterday. The school now has ten days to comply. 

Lagueux’s decision marks an important win for advocates of church and state seperation. To be absolutely clear: this case is not another example of angry atheists attacking religion, or a high school student seeking attention. In fact,  Jessica has faced so many insults and threats that she might not return to Cranston for her senior year, prompting Lagueux to praise Ahlquist as “clearly an articulate and courageous young woman, who took a brave stand, particularly in the light of the hostile response she has received from the community.”

Rather, this case was about a public high school endorsing a specific religious view. In line with the Establishment Clause and ensuing Supreme Court decisions, the United States government should remain strictly neutral on matters of religious belief. It should not favor one religion over another religion, or religion over non-religion. Clearly Judge Laguex understands this. Hopefully administrators at Cranston get the message.

You can show support for Jessica’s bravery on this Facebook group supporting the banner’s removal.

UPDATE: you can watch video of today’s press conference here. 

Nevada District Judge James E. Wilson ordered sponsors of the proposal to add the following language before attempting to collect the 72,352 signatures needed to get on next year’s ballot:

The initiative would protect a prenatal person regardless of
whether or not the prenatal person would live, grow, or develop in the
womb or survive birth; prevent all abortions even in the case of rape,
incest, or serious threats to the woman’s health or life, or when a
woman is suffering from a miscarriage, or as an emergency treatment for
an ectopic pregnancy.  The initiative will impact some rights Nevada
women currently have to access certain fertility treatments such as in
vitro fertilization.  The initiative will impact some rights Nevada
women currently have to utilize some forms of birth control, including
the “pill;” and to access certain fertility treatments such as in vitro
fertilization.  The initiative will affect embryonic stem cell
research,  which offers potential for treating diseases such as
diabetes,  Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and others.

Kudos to Judge Wilson for ensuring that Nevada residents are made aware of the measure’s potential impact on women. Given that a similar proposal failed earlier this year in the much more conservative state of Mississippi, the chances are good that Nevada residents will reject this measure. 

Of course, what Wilson did not say is that the amendment—and others like it—is absurd both conceptually and legally. Philosophically speaking, personhood is not granted to mere “human life,” which includes small collections of cells, but to beings that have some degree of sentience,  self-awareness, or agency. Fertilized human eggs clearly lack all three, as do fetuses until at least 28 weeks. Legally speaking, even if a personhood measure passed, it would be shot down as clearly violating the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, and several later decisions.

The former point is an especially important one. Reproductive rights advocates often sidestep the personhood argument and frame the abortion debate as an issue of “women’s rights.” Yet abortion is only a woman’s right because the personhood argument is wrong. Recognition of this logic has important implications. You can read more about my thoughts on this here.

But perhaps more importantly, the failure of the personhood movement does not necessarily mark progress in the fight for reproductive rights. The personhood push was actually just one small part of the religious right’s much larger war on reproductive rights in 2011. It is safe to assume that this trend will continue in 2012.

Furthermore, despite a string of favorable court rulings, women still face enormous challenges in exercising their reproductive rights. As Rachel Maddow has reported via the Alan Guttmacher Institute, it is impossible to get an abortion in 87 percent of all U.S. counties. In fact, there is only one abortion clinic in the entire state of Mississippi. As Maddow said, “Why bother making it illegal if you can just make it impossible to get?”

The moral landscape is not set for rapid change, so reproductive rights advocates should be prepared in 2012 to both fight measures that restrict access to safe and legal reproductive health care, and actively work to increase access to such care across the U.S.

The letters were sent to the directors of faith-based offices within the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Justice, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, along with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Corporation for National and Community Service.

CFI previously joined member groups of the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination (CARD) on June 21, 2011, and again on Sept. 19, 2011, in writing President Barack Obama to issue an executive order that would reverse a 2002 executive order by President George W. Bush and close a loophole allowing religious discrimination on the taxpayers’ dime. Our letters reminded Obama of a pledge he made while campaigning in Zanesville, Ohio, on July 1, 2008. At the time, Obama said: “If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them—or against the people you hire—on the basis of their religion.”

The Obama administration did not formally reply to either letter, and has instead repeatedly told concerned secularists that it has “struck the right balance” on the subject, and determines whether religious groups are discriminating on the basis of religion with federal funds on a “case-by-case” basis. However, it has not defined what standards—if any—are used.

The new round of letters ask a number of questions on these supposed standards, including:

1. What is the process for how your agency begins the “case-by-case” review of an organization that seeks to discriminate on the basis of religion with federal funds?
2. Is there a process for a person who suspects federally funded religious discrimination is taking place to report a potential violation?
3. If there have, in fact, been cases forwarded from your agency for review, (a) how many have there been; (b) what were the facts of those cases; and (c) what was the decision reached in each case?

You can join CFI in asking President Obama to end federally funded discrimination today by clicking here.

However, these new guidelines have faced fierce public opposition from organized religion. Most notably, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is lobbying the HHS to either eliminate the new guidelines or widely expand the current exemption clause – which now covers employers whose main purpose is to promote religious doctrine – to also include religious hospitals, charities, and universities.

This means that hundreds of thousands of women would be left without preventative health coverage simply because of their employer’s religiously motivated objections.

In response, CFI and several organizations have sent a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, pushing her to maintain her ground on the new guidelines. Yet recent news reports suggest that President Barack Obama is now considering religious arguments to expand the exemption clause.

This is where you come in. Join CFI in telling the Obama administration to stand for science and reason, and keep religious belief out of our health care laws. 

Click here to take action now.