====================================================================== MITAAH News -- Volume #2 / Issue #7 -- February 28, 1998 (sent sporadically to mitaah@mit.edu mailing list) Pseudo-random samplings of information that may relate to atheism, agnosticism, humanism, freethought, or church-state separation issues. Please send any promising material to reagan@mit.edu. http://www.mit.edu/~mitaah/ ====================================================================== In this issue: * Officer Elections * Recent AAH activities * Coming Attractions * T-Shirts! * News and views * Mailing lists: a reminder * Some humor, as usual ====================================================================== Election Results ---------------- The elections for the 1998-99 officer board were held Thursday, February 27 at 8 pm in W20-PDR#3. All candidates ran unopposed, but were welcomed into office by a sizable group of AAH members and regulars. The new board is: Matthew Reagan President (reagan) Kenneth Lu Vice-President (kenlu) Emily Hanna Secretary (ejhanna) Shaun Neumann Treasurer (neumann) As always, the officer board as a whole can be reached at mitaah-officers@mit.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Recent Events ------------- On Sunday, February 15, a big group of AAH folks T'ed into Boston for a semester-opening dinner out. Our first destination was Vinnie Testa's new Boylston location, but the place was absolutely packed and wasn't ready to handle a large group (plus it looked a little too foofy, anyway). Rather than wait two hours for the one large table, we headed down the block to a Middle Eastern place, Cafe Jaffa, recommended by Mark Skandera. It was a good choice! Everyone pigged out on huge plates of grilled meats while discussing the usual AAH topics of MIT life and whether baba ghanoush constitutes evidence for the intelligent design. Or something like that. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Coming Attractions ------------------ Here's what's in store for the upcoming semester. Watch the mitaah mailing list for dates and times. Care to help out? Have an idea of your own? Contact us at mitaah-planning@mit.edu. * Ask the Chaplains: a public forum where the MIT community will have a chance to get real answers from MIT's religious leaders. Target date: middle of April. * A new drop poster! Watch the list to see when we'll be hanging up another piece of colorful controversy. Target date: mid-April. * Secular charity: volunteer work is not only for the religious. Take an afternoon off and help out at a local Cambridge soup kitchen. * Lunch with AAH: We've reserved a private dining room over the lunch hours (12-2) in W20 for six or seven different dates this semester. Come out and dine with AAH members in an informal setting. We also plan to occasionally extend invitations to various religious groups on campus in a format similar to the AAH-GCF forums of last year. Watch for announcements. * Spring Retreat! It's official--we have MITOC's Intervale Cabin for Patriot's Day weekend (Sat/Sun)! We can hang out in the warm, cozy, snowbound hut, cook another nice dinner, and get to know each other better. Weather permitting, we can take an afternoon walk up into Tuckerman Ravine to enjoy high alpine splendor and watch the brave (foolish?) jump off the Lip or shred the Left Gully. The best part--there is *no class* Monday or Tuesday, so you don't have to feel bad about taking a weekend off! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- T-Shirts -------- Support MITAAH, plus get a new outfit! Both t-shirt designs (see the webpage for pictures) are currently available for only $12. The money goes into the treasury to support AAH activities. E-mail Shaun Neumann (neumann) and get one today! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- News and Views Excerpts from mailing lists and news sources -------------------------------------------- RFA/RFRA Updates: (AANews #397) CALIFORNIA RFRA GROUPS WANT EXEMPTION "SPECIAL RIGHTS" BILLS SLATED FOR TEXAS, OHIO, MARYLAND Supporters of the California version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act -- known there as the Religious Freedom Protection Act -- are working to defeat an amendment to the proposed bill that would prohibit discrimination under the guise of religious belief. That move has aggravated the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, the nationwide umbrella group that is promoting state level "mini-RFRAs" in California and elsewhere. Under the California measure, and most likely the other RFRAs now being introduced in state legislatures elsewhere, individuals and groups could legally discriminate against others as long as their actions are rooted in a religious belief. And as noted in today's posting at the First Amendment Center, should such discrimination, "supposedly justified by religious beliefs, be permitted when discriminatory actions spurred by deeply held philosophical or secular beliefs are not?" The question touches on critical issues, including how far should government should go in attempting to balance equal enforcement of laws with religious belief. Critics of RFRA charge that the legislation marginalizes atheists and anyone else who is nonreligious, thus creating "special rights" for churches and other faith-based organizations. Lining up to support the California Religious Freedom Protection Act is a disparate group of religious and advocacy groups including the Traditional Values Coalition, People for the American Way, California Council of Churches and even the American Civil Liberties Union. At the national level, the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion has attracted an equally diverse range from Baptists, Jews, Humanists, Catholics and Muslims to new agers and even ACLU, PAW and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. The Coalition proposed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act which mandated that government must show "compelling interest" before "burdening" any faith-based group. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down RFRA, though, in the controversial BOERNE v. FLORES case in June, 1997. Justices ruled that Congress had overstepped its authority in passing the legislation back in 1993. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in his opinion, expressed the position that the act was a clear violation of First Amendment state-church separation, and provided religious groups "with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain." "This governmental preference for religion," wrote Stevens, "as opposed to irreligion is forbidden by the First Amendment." Stung by the court's reprimand, though, supporters of RFRA have launched an effort to enact "mini-RFRAs" at the state level. Rhode Island and Connecticut have already enacted their own version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and legislation is in the hopper in California, Tennessee, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, New York and Georgia. Even the federal RFRA did not contain the exemption which members of the California Assembly have tacked on to the Religious Freedom Protection Act; the amendment thus seeks to uphold laws against discrimination, even when that discrimination is grounded in a sectarian belief. Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA, told FAC's Freedom Forum that the proposed bill, as originally framed, would act to "give a massive accommodation applicable in all walks of life, and potentially touching any conflict between conscience and law -- only to those Californians who are religiously motivated, and to deny it to others." But the California flap is only a bump in the road for the "stealth agenda" to enact RFRA legislation... -- A version of RFRA has already cleared the New York legislature, and is awaiting final action by Gov. George Pataki. -- In Ohio, the Attorney General's office is working on draft legislature. -- Texas state Senator Jeff Wentworth says that he will be introducing RFRA. -- There is a report of RFRA slated for introduction in Maryland. -- In Arizona, HB 2421 has been introduced by Reps. Newman, Loredo, Rios and Weason, and is now in the Rules Committee. The measure would add language to the Arizona Revised Statutes that includes language borrowed directly from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and states that: "This article shall not be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief." -- In Florida, House Bill 3203 has been introduced by Representatives Starks and Trovillion, and is called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1998. It too contains the essential language of RFRA. But there is another RFRA bill, HB 3201, introduced by the same legislators, which has slightly different wording. It is somewhat similar to RFRA legislation in Virginia in that it exempts prisoners from the coverage of the act, and states that government may not "excessively" burden religious practice when enforcing a rule of general applicability, "except that government may substantially burden an incarcerated person's exercise of religion..." But it then goes on to propose "the least restrictive means of furthering... substantial penologicla interest." In light of this, both the Virginia and possibly the Florida versions could end up as being "full employment laws for attorneys." If passed, expect considerable litigation from inmates and other advocacy groups. The ACLU has backed off supporting RFRA proposals that do not extend equal protection to incarcerated inmates. ----- (PFAW Press 2/25/98) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 25, 1998 CONTACT: Lisa Versaci (305) 444-5017999 Delisa Saunders (202) 467-4999 Lee County School Board Settlement A 'Victory for the First Amendment,' Shields Says FORT MYERS, Fla. -- Wednesday night's decision by the Lee County School Board to settle a costly and divisive federal lawsuit challenging the Board's attempts to advance religion in public schools by teaching the Bible as history is a "victory for the First Amendment and vindication of People For the American Way Foundation's efforts in Lee County during the past two years," PFAWF President Carole Shields said Wednesday. Last December, Lee County parents and other concerned citizens filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop the Lee County School Board from teaching an unconstitutional "Bible History" course that uses the Bible as though it were a history textbook. Serving as co-counsel in the lawsuit are the Florida law firm of Steel Hector & Davis, People For the American Way Foundation and the ACLU Foundation of Florida. In January, U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich issued an injunction against the teaching of the school board's New Testament curriculum. The judge allowed, for the time being, the teaching of the Old Testament portion of the course, but only under strict monitoring, and ordered the two sides to engage in settlement negotiations. A settlement offer submitted to the school board Monday on behalf of the plaintiffs was the result of these negotiations. . . . Under the terms of the settlement agreed to Wednesday night by the Lee County School Board, the Board will withdraw the Old Testament and New Testament curricula that it previously adopted and that were challenged in the lawsuit as unconstitutional because they teach the Bible as true. Instead, the Board has agreed to teach a new, objective and non-sectarian course based upon a textbook entitled Introduction to the Bible. Lisa Versaci, Florida director of the People For the American Way Foundation, said that under the terms of the settlement, the word "history" is no longer in the course title. "This too is a victory,"she said. "The new course will not be a history course, and the Board recognizes in the settlement agreement that it cannot lawfully teach that unverifiable aspects of the Bible, such as the miracles and resurrection of Jesus, are historical fact. For nearly two years, we have advised this school board that there is a right way and a wrong way to teach about the Bible in public schools. At great cost to this school district, financially and emotionally, this Board consistently chose the wrong way. We are pleased that the Board has now seen fit to abandon its former course, and we hope that no further litigation will be necessary." ----- (AANews #396) DEFEAT OF CLONING BILL NIXES CHRISTIAN COALITION AGENDA A major bill promoted by the Christian Coalition that would have banned all human cloning has been rejected by the U.S. Senate in a 54-42 vote. Some Republicans crossed the aisle to join Democrats who were concerned that the measure was too wide sweeping, and could have a negative impact on future scientific research. The measure touched on related "life issues" such as abortion and assisted suicide; support for the legislation came from the CC and the National Right to Life Committee, which has announced its opposition to cloning, saying that even cloned fetal tissue used for research is still a complete human being. The measure, known as the Human Cloning Prohibition Act (S.1601) had been introduced by Republican Sens. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri and Bill Frist of Tennessee. It would have made it illegal to make embryonic tissue through a procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer; those convicted of violating the act would have faced up to ten years in prison and a fine of as much as $250,000. Somatic cell nuclear transfer involves transferring the nucleus of an adult's body cell egg into another egg which has had its own nucleus removed. The Bond-Frist bill faced widespread opposition from both the academic community and biotechnology firms. Even Dr. Paul Berg, considered a cautious conservative on issues such as DNA research and human cloning, said that the bill "would clearly block very important research." He and 26 other Nobel Prize winners drafted a letter to Congress and the White House urging that any legislation passed to address cloning should avoid "language that impedes critical ongoing and potential new research." ----- (AANews #393) PROFANING JESUS LEADS TO OBSCENITY CHARGE IN FLORIDA While religious groups are demanding legislation to protect their freedom of expression, a 24-year-old man in Ocala, Florida is now in trial facing an obscenity charge over a T-shirt depicting a bare-breasted nun that called Jesus Christ a "profane" name. Record store clerk Andrew Love was wearing a t-shirt in a shopping mall when he was told by security guards to turn his garment inside out or leave the premises. A wire service story from Reuters says, "Before he was able to reverse the shirt, Ocala police showed up, arrested him and confiscated it. The shirt shows a bare-breasted woman in a nun's habit reaching between her legs. On the back are the words 'Jesus is a ...,' using a crude term for female genitalia." As in most censorship cases, the law attempts to contrast what is "offensive" from what statutes define as "obscene." In Florida, obscenity is something which the "average person believes would appeal to a prurient, shameful or morbid interest, or lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." News about the case has probably exposed more people to the message on Mr. Love's t-shirt than would otherwise have seen it, had the mall guards and police simply ignored him. His attorney, Jim Reich, told reporters that the case has now sparked support from Cradle of Filth, the rock band which the t-shirt drawing and slogan was promoting. Mr. Reich is arguing that the arrest amounted to unlawful prior restraint since police offers made their own determination that the shirt was obscene. If convicted, Mr. Love faces up to a $1,000 fine and a year in jail. ----- (AANews #391) COALITION, RELIGIOUS GROUPS WIN IN MAINE GAY RIGHTS REFERENDUM Voters in Maine have narrowly repealed the state's law which banned discrimination against gays. Yesterday's referendum asked voters, "Do you want to reject the law passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation with respect to jobs, housing, public accommodation and credit?" 51.9% voted in favor of repeal to 48.1 against -- this with about 92% of precincts report in as of this morning. It was a victory for the Christian Coalition which had led the anti-gay initiative, and its allies. "The contest pitted conservative Christian groups against of a coalition of civil rights activists, business leaders and Gov. Angus King," reported a Reuters dispatch late last night. Maine was one of 11 states that had such an anti-discrimination law. The measure was enacted by lawmakers in 1993, but was vetoed by then-Governor John McKernan. The current governor appeared in television and radio promos to retain the law, though, saying that people should not lose jobs or be denied other rights on account of sexual preference. Christian Coalition Director Randy Tate told the Washington Post that the Maine referendum "was definitely a clear victory for people of faith." A Coalition statement going out this afternoon to news media called the vote "a stunning upset," adding that "Christian conservatives went to the polls in droves on Tuesday... to strike down a controversial gay-rights bill." The state CC worked closely with an umbrella of church and other religious groups calling itself the Christian Civic League. Tate boasted that his group "distributed 240,000 voter guides in 900 churches and ran get-out-the-vote ads on selected radio stations throughout Maine in the days prior to the election (and)... mailed 100,000 get-out-the-vote postcards directly to voters." But one reason for the Christian victory in Maine could be the voter turnout. Independent surveys indicated that nearly 2/3 of Maine's citizens favored gay rights and anti-discrimination measures. While those figures were dismissed by repeal proponents, the Christian groups obviously succeeded in mobilizing their constituency. Voter turnout, about 33%, was described as "low" in news reports and on CNN. Reuters noted, though, that the figure was larger than what officials had predicted. Anti-gay forces, though, were enthusiastic and well-disciplined, and claimed to have been outspent by their opponents by as much as 8-1. "We feel great," gushed a state Christian Coalition official. "We'll just have to see where we go from here, see what the other side does. We're in this battle for the long haul." ----- (AANews #394) RUSHDIE DEATH ORDER UNDERMINES CLAIMS OF ISLAMIC "MODERATION, REFORM" Can President Khatami Control Religious Extremists In Iran ? Iran's chief prosecutor has reaffirmed the "fatwa" or death order on novelist Salman Rushdie, declaring that the author of the 1989 book "The Satanic Verses" must die for the sin of blaspheming Islam. "The shedding of this man's blood is obligatory," declared Morteza Moqtadaie, who is also a senior cleric in Iran's religious establishment. The remarks were made on the eve of the anniversary of the death sentence which was pronounced by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini; he charged that Rushdie, a renowned writer and intellectual, had insulted the prophet Mohammed in the pages of his novel. That ignited world wide Muslim demonstrations and riots which sent Rushdie into hiding. Despite the "fatwa," Rushdie manages to still make unannounced public appearances, and continues to write. While Islamists support the decree issued by Khomeini, human rights groups and others have come to Rushdie's defense. The European Union supports the embattled author, and has called on Iran to enter into a dialogue aimed at withdrawing the "fatwa." Religious experts, however, point out that only the cleric who issues the death sentence can withdraw it. Khomeini, who orchestrated the 1979 religious coup that overthrew the Shah of Iran, died in June, 1989, four months after issuing the decree. Speaking at Tehran University, a stronghold for religious hard liners in Iran, Moqtadaie declared last week, "Any Muslim who hears an insult to the prophet must kill the person who commits the insult. It is better that those closest to that person try to kill him first." That bloodthirsty proclamation was met with cries from the worshippers, "Allah Akbar," ("God is great" in Arabic). "What Iman Khomeini did is exactly what the prophet did, and this ("fatwa") must be preserved," he added. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Mailing Lists ------------- Remember to be careful--the mitaah list is an annoucement list only. Discussion needs to stay on the discussion lists, and specific requests should go to the officers or planning lists. Once again, we have the following lists for your reading pleasure: mitaah Official announcements mitaah-discussion Free-form discussion mitaah-gcf-forum AAH-Graduate Christian Fellowship discussion forum To add/remove yourself from any of the lists, use the following command from your athena% prompt: 'blanche $USER' Switches are '-a' to add, '-d' to remove. Your request will not be processed until 2am the next morning, so there may be up to a 26 hour wait for changes to take effect. *Please do not send requests to the list itself*, and remember that you are responsible for your own list maintenance. Other AAH lists include: mitaah-officers Feedback to the officers mitaah-planning Feedback to the planning board -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It's a joke, son" ------------------ If you haven't seen it already, take a look at: http://www.theonion.com/onion3305/desiretoejaculate.html MITAAH has no comment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------