Coalition of Secular Voters

Experiences at the DNC

CSV — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:06:00 GMT

The Coalition of Secular Voters organized along with several other local Colorado organizations, including COCORE and the Boulder Atheists, to demonstrate at the Democratic National Convention. The two main demonstrations were at the Interfaith Gathering held on August 24th at the Colorado Convention Center, and participation in the parade held at 11:00 am on Monday August 25th.

Both of our demonstrations were very well received. In fact we had numerous supporters applauding our efforts on both occasions. At the Interfaith Gathering, between CSV, COCORE, and BA, we had somewhere around 15 to 20 demonstrators, plus there were a few other pro-secular groups there that weren't with our group. We, along with several other groups, were somewhat overshadowed by a large and loud anti-abortion Christian group that was reading Bible verses, talking about following scripture, and saying that America is worse than Nazi Germany because of abortion over megaphones with large images of late-term aborted fetuses, but nevertheless we had significant visibility.

The primary reason that we chose to demonstrate at the Interfaith Gathering was because repeated appeals had been made to the organizers of the event to include a non-religious speaker among the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist speakers, but all of these appeals were turned down. In addition, the organizer, Leah Daughtry stated, "Democrats have been, are and will continue to be people of faith - and this interfaith gathering is proof of that."

Not only is this statement factually untrue, but it is also highly offensive to non-religious members of the Democratic Party, of which there were over 8 million in 2001, probably over 10 million now. A much more appropriate statement could have been, "the Democratic Party welcomes people of faith," which should certainly be the case. Any major political party in America today should be inclusive of both religious and non-religious members.

At the Interfaith Gathering we handed out several different flyers (see the CSV flyers here) between the three groups and held signs advocating separation of church and state. I had several people approach me asking for flyers, including even a passing taxi driver. Lots of people gave the thumbs up and stated that they supported our message. I didn't witness any negative reaction to our demonstration, though certainly some people may not have agreed.

Marvin Straus, the organizer of COCORE, was interviewed by CSPAN on tape and I was interviewed by a reporter from the Jerusalem Post. You can see the results of that interview here: Democratic convention focuses on faith

But whether or not faith voters can be drawn in, some other voters are beginning to feel alienated, charging that the Democratic Party is turning its back on the value of separating religion and politics that it has long stood for.

Outside the interfaith gathering on Sunday, one protester who's part of a self-described secular voting bloc held a placard reading, "Keep church and state separate."

"I understand their need to court religious voters," said Mr Price. "The problem is that this event feels like it was courting religious voters at the expense of nonreligious voters."

...

And the effort has not sat well with some Jewish groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League, which has long pushed for a strict separation between faith and politics.

ADL National Director Abraham Foxman said the "distressing" focus on religion in the campaigns threatened to "change the nature of our country," which was founded on a separation of church and state. He was referring to the convention, as well as to candidates' statements and participation in religious events throughout the campaign.

What I found most interesting about the Interfiath Service is that the values of many of the speakers that were hosted at the service were at odds with the Democratic Party platform. One of the main speakers at the event, for example, stated that he was opposed to legalized abortion. I found it interesting that the Democratic Party would not host a non-religious speaker who may have fully agreed with every plank of the party platform but they were happy to host religious speakers who spoke in opposition to the party platform. To me this indicates that this religious outreach could have far reaching effects on the party, with changes to the party's core positions. Other speakers spoke out in favor of school vouchers for religious private schools, etc. It is also notable that legislation in opposition to teaching evolution in public schools and in favor of allowing the teaching of "alternatives to evolution" has been sponsored and supported by religious Democrats in several states, including Texas, Florida, and Louisiana over the past year. Does all of this signify a significant shift within the Democratic party?

On Monday five members of CSV gathered under a "Keep Religion Out of Politics" billboard downtown that was put up by FFRF.

From there we walked to the parade route and we barely made it into the first parade of the day as it was actually quite small and leaving as we arrived. We got in on the tail-end of that parade and marched from Civic Center Park to the Pepsi Center. Lots of pictures were being taken of us along the way by individuals and news organizations. What will become of those images I have no idea, but we took some of our own as well.

Once we got closer to the Pepsi Center's "freedom cages" there were more reporters. Along the way we were interviewed on camera by CBS Channel 5 and a reporter from Fox News. You can read a excerpt from the CBS Channel 5 interview here: Convention Protesters Keeping Things Low Key

Some people say it’s like preaching to the choir at the DNC, but others do have concerns with the party.

“We are concerned about the direction the Democratic Party’s going with support of the faith based initiatives, and some of the faith based outreach, which is more exclusive of non-religious and secular traditions,”

A photo of us is also up on FOX News' website: Democratic Convention Photos

Several of us also participated in short on-camera statements for a group that will be producing a series on changes people would like to see in politics.

We opted not to enter the "freedom cages" and instead to head back to our cars and call it a day. On our way back we walked through downtown and past the Convention Center prominently displaying our signs. We were again greeted with many supporters and at least a dozen passers-by gave some verbal indication of support.

All-in-all we think we had a relatively successful presence at the DNC, although our demonstration didn't make headline news and does not appear to have been picked up yet as a major talking point by the media, which seems to be primarily focused on disgruntled Hillary supporters and inconsequential protests by Anarchist groups.

CSV would like to thank the reporters who did take the time to approach us and talk to us about our concerns with religion in politics and separation of church and state, as well, of course, as everyone who came out and participated to make our demonstrations possible.

Open Letter to the Democratic Party Regarding "Interfaith Gathering"

CSV — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:30:00 GMT

This is a letter that has been sent to the "Interfaith" organizer for the DNC at the address InterFaith@demconvention.com, in addition to several of the speakers who are scheduled to speak at the event as well as other secular advocacy groups. This is an event scheduled to kickoff the DNC in which there will be several speakers from a variety of religious faiths, but there will not be any representative for the non-religious, despite repeated requests from secular organizations for a non-religious speaker.

This letter is not meant as either an endorsement of the Democratic Party or any other party, nor as an indication of opposition to the Democratic Party or any other party. CSV is a non-partisan organization that represents the interests of secular voters of all parties.

The Interfiath Gathering being put on by the Democratic Party on August 24th has upset a significant constituency of the Democratic Party. Not because the event is being held, but because, despite repeated requests for inclusion, no representatives of this group have been invited to speak at the gathering. Who is this constituency? The non-religious.

You may be asking, why would the non-religious want to attend an "Interfaith Gathering", and do they even have any business there anyway?

Firstly, of course the non-religious have business being there. When an organization begins to hold special events for specific "types" of people, this is called discrimination, and this is also a road that leads to the establishment of "in crowds" and "out crowds", "more valued" and "less valued" members, claims of equal that are really separate and not equal. Organizer Leah Daughtry has said that non-religious Democrats are welcome to attend, just not to speak. Apparently we can be seen but not heard. We are told that we can participate in someone else's agenda, but we have no voice of our own.

Secondly, there are many reasons why the non-religious community is very upset about this and why many in the community feel that it is very important to have a speaker at this event.

1) The Bush administration.
The past eight years have galvanized the non-religious community as millions of non-religious Americans have watched in horror as the "Religious-Right" (and we are very aware that the Religious-Right does not represent all religious people) has flexed its muscle in American politics, helped to twice elect a disastrous president, has made repeated attacks on American science education, on women's right to choose, on gay rights, and on the general civility of American political, social, and religious discourse. Give all of these things the non-religious community has overwhelmingly come out in support of the Democratic Party in 2004, in 2006, and now in 2008. Not only this, but the non-religious community is also now increasingly dismayed at the mixing of religion with politics and rightfully interested in making sure that any event such as this is not exclusive of their voice.

2) Building the "Big Tent".
The Democratic Party has said that it wishes to use events such as this to create a "big tent", but this very event is actually making the tent smaller. If we wish to build a "Big Tent" then we have to include everyone, and that includes the non-religious. Exclusive events such as this make the non-religious feel unwelcome in the Democratic Party. Given that non-religious is the second largest "religious identity" in America today behind Christian, this is not a good thing. There are more non-religious Americans than all religious American Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Native American religionists, Hindus, etc. combined. There are over 30 million non-religious Americans, a very significant number of people. The "Big Tent" cannot be built without them.

3) Non-religious still face discrimination.
This event is itself an example of the discrimination that we face today. The Democratic Party bills itself as the party of openness and acceptance and an advocate of civil rights, yet here we are facing discrimination. This despite the fact that many of America's leading civil rights advocates over the centuries have been non-religious, from Thomas Paine (a deist who was against organized religion) to Elizabeth Caddy Stanton (agnostic) to Margaret Sanger (No Gods, No Masters) to Albert Einstein (spiritual atheist and social activist in addition to being a brilliant scientist) and many more. Non-religious Americans have been at the forefront of social justice movements in America since the founding of the country and yet here we still are as outsiders in American politics and indeed American society. Surveys show that the non-religious are still the least trusted and most maligned group in American society, behind racial minorities, homosexuals, and all other religious minorities, yet roughly 1 in 5 Americans is non-religious and essentially everyone lives with, works with, and is friends with non-religious people in America whether they know it or not.

4) "Faith" and values.
Perhaps most importantly, this event was a perfect opportunity to help build bridges between the religious and non-religious community to achieve the harmony that the party needed. The non-religious community realizes that we aren't a majority, that we can't do it alone, that we have to share political space and power with religious partners. Furthermore, the vast majority of non-religious people have every desire to work with the religious community to achieve shared goals and to defend shared values. The non-religious work with religious people all the time, most Americans are religious, if we didn't have shared values and couldn't work with religious people we'd have an awfully hard time. Most non-religious people come from religious families, our parents are religious, are grandparents are religious, our children are religious, our friends, neighbors, and co-workers are religious.

While most non-religious of course do not have faith in a god (some believe in a god but not religion, again think Thomas Paine) many have faith in other things, such as humanity, science, America, freedom, ourselves, heck perhaps even our political party. And we certainly have values, many or all of which are shared with members of religious communities. Indeed we can even acknowledge the impact of religious traditions on our values. Certainly the social justice advocated in the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament has been a powerful force in shaping Western society. We can acknowledge that even while not believing in the historical validity or supernatural claims of those writings.

What is public prayer if not a statement of values, beliefs, goals and desires to the community? Events such as this offer the religious a forum to express their desires, values, beliefs, and goals to the community, but give the non-religious no voice to share in the process.

5) Politics is about shared goals and deeds, not beliefs.
Politics, as any good theologian would acknowledge, is an earthly endeavor, an endeavor of "man". Politics is not religion, it does not require that those that we form bonds with and work with and cooperate with share our beliefs. What is important is that we share common goals, objectives, and actions. People, whether they be Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, or atheists all have very different beliefs. Even within any given religion of course people have very different beliefs. We don't have to share the same beliefs in order to live and work together cooperatively, and to develop policy, to support political agendas, to elect people to office, etc. That is, after all, the entire basis of "secularism", a system that allows individuals to hold different personal beliefs without compromising their ability to cooperate in the formation and administration of a political system.

6) Trust.
The message that we get from this Interfaith gathering, and the exclusion of non-religious representation from it, is that the non-religious are not trusted. Likewise, this now erodes trust within the non-religious community of even religious liberals and moderates. The non-religious community essentially assumes that this Interfaith gather is not a gathering of religious conservatives (although an Orthodox Rabbi is the lead speaker). The non-religious community assumes that this is a gathering of liberal and moderate Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. Therefore we assume that we already have many shared values, and yet the message is that even a gathering of religious liberals and moderates won't have us and doesn't trust us. This certainly doesn't make for party unity. The non-religious community wants to be trusted by religious liberals and moderates, and we want to be able to trust them. This was an opportunity to build such trust and cooperation, but it seems that it will be missed.

Conclusion

Non-religious Democrats have the same goals and objectives as religious Democrats: Elect Barack Obama, end the war in Iraq, improve the American healthcare system, develop a more fair tax system in America, strengthen the American middle class and thus the economy as a whole, advocate for economic justice, advocate for social justice, advocate for women's rights, and advocate for religious freedom, which includes the freedom not to believe and the freedom of others to believe as they wish, without our politicians and government picking sides, choosing favorites, or using their power to impose their beliefs on others.

This is a big issue. If you are not aware, the fact that the non-religious are seeking representation at this event it has been covered by many news organizations, for example:

http://www.gazette.com/articles/convention_39362___article.html/service_interfaith.html

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0730-26.htm

http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_10216736?source=commented-opinion

Non-religious is the fastest growing "religious" identity in America today, it's the second largest "religious" identity in America behind Christian, and we have watched in horror as the Bush administration has trampled the rights of Americans, has waged an illegal and unethical war, has ravaged our legal system, has undermined our economy, and has tarnished America's image around the world, all with the help of the "Evangelical Christian" vote and the "Religious-Right". We have seen the influence of religious leaders behind closed doors in the Republican Party and we certainly do not want to see that repeated in the Democratic Party. Thus, I hope you can understand the significant concern that the non-religious community has when it feels that its voice is being excluded in events such as this.

Thank you,
Coalition of Secular Voters

Louisiana - Anti-evolution "Academic Freedom Act" SB 561

CSV — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:13:00 GMT

It seems that one of the very popular movements around the nation at the moment is the use of "academic freedom" legislation to allow the teaching of unscientific beliefs in science classes at public schools. Apparently the fact that America is already lagging behind other industrialized countries in science doesn't phase these people who want to undermine scientific education even further.

Antievolution legislation in Louisiana

Senate Bill 561, styled the "Louisiana Academic Freedom Act," was prefiled in the Louisiana Senate by state senator Ben Nevers (Democrat-District 12) on March 21, 2008, and provisionally assigned to the Senate Education Committee, of which Nevers is the chair. In name, the bill is similar to the so-called academic freedom bills in Florida, House Bill 1483 and Senate Bill 2692, which are evidently based on a string of similar bills in Alabama as well as on a model bill that the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the institutional home of "intelligent design" creationism, recently began to promote. But in its content, Louisiana's SB 561 seems to be modeled instead on a controversial policy adopted by a local school board in 2006.

Adopted in 2006 with the backing of the Louisiana Family Forum, a religious right group with a long history of promoting creationism and attacking evolution education in the state, the Ouachita Parish School Board's policy permits teachers to help students to understand "the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught"; "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning" are the only topics specifically mentioned. A local paper editorially described it as "a policy that is so clear that one School Board member voted affirmatively while adding, 'but I don't know what I'm voting on'" (Monroe News-Star, December 3, 2006).

The wording of these "academic freedom" bills is becoming increasingly sophisticated, using increasingly "scientific" language and terminology, but they are all intent on undercutting science. Effectively what this bill seeks to do is protect any "scientific claims" in regard to evolution, the development of life, etc. "Scientific" in this sense is inferred to mean non-supernatural claims, thus teaching things like "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics" would be protected under the bill.

Text of the bill itself: Senate Bill 561

$30 Million in Congresional Religious Earmarks for 2008

CSV — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 20:58:00 GMT

The Secular Coalition for America (not affiliated with CSV) recently released an analysis of the congressional earmark appropriations for fiscal year 2008. In this analysis they found that over $30 million has been appropriated for overtly religious organizations. Having looked over their data and having looked over some of the earmark data myself I think that this is actually an under estimate. Their study also acknowledges that this $30 million is associated with only the most blatantly religious organizations, leaving many earmarks to religious organizations off the list.

The study found that 52% of the earmarks were made by Republicans and 42% were made by Democrats.

The most common religious programs that are recipient of earmarks are educational institutions. I've looked over several earmarks and found that not only do religious colleges and universities receive earmarked funds, but grade schools and high schools do as well, which essentially negates the entire point of not providing government funding to religious schools. So what we find in the earmark process are funds going to religious programs that would otherwise never be able to get government funding. This has effectively become an under-the-radar means of providing government funds to religious schools.

Secular Coalition for America "Top Ten" Religious Earmarks

The top ten most egregious earmarks of the 140 we discovered:

$750,000 to renovate World Impact Ministries St. Louis Headquarters (Bond, R-MO).

$200,000 to the International Fellowship of Chaplains to pay for their attendance at the Road to Hope Training Program (Gillmor*, R-OH).

$200,000 to the Lower East Side Conservancy, a group that works to restore and preserve living synagogues (Maloney, D-NY).

$200,000 to the Goodwill Rescue Mission, a homeless shelter that seeks to convert its clients to Christianity (Lautenberg, D-NJ).

$850,000 for construction at Morning Star Ranch, a Christian-only camp that trains youth to become lay evangelists (Brownback, R-KS).

$300,000 to Wildwood Ranch, another Christian-only camp (Conyers, D-MI).

$350,000 to Northwest Nazarene University, an evangelical college with a strict code of conduct that does not admit nontheists and possibly gays/lesbians (Craig and Crapo, R-ID).

$450,000 to Grace College, an evangelical Christian college that requires belief in an inerrant Bible for admission (Souder, R-IN).

$150,000 to Quinn Chapel in Chicago for renovation (Davis, D-IL).

$150,000 to New Hope Academy, a reform and rehabilitation program that requires conversion to Christianity (Carney, D-PA).

For more information see: Constitutionally Suspect Earmarks in the FY2008 Congressional Appropriations

Florida - Ballot initiative to remove Separation of Church & State from Constitution

CSV — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:32:00 GMT

Florida Budget and Taxation Reform Commission has recently put forward a ballot initiative, Proposal 20, to make a change to the state constitution that would remove the limitation on state funds going to religious organizations. This proposal will be on the ballot in November and has a real possibility of changing the state constitution.

The advocacy for this proposal is already quite misleading. The proponents of the proposal are framing the issue as one of discrimination, both as one of discrimination against religious institutions now and as one of anti-Catholic discrimination in the past. The claim of the proponents is that the provision against state funds for religious institutions was passed in 1868 out of anti-Catholic sentiments in order to prevent Catholic schools from getting state funds, but this is in fact not the case. That was one argument that was sometimes used to try a persuade some Protestant groups, but that was never the main reason for the provision, which was protection of religious liberty in general and the growing popular desire for non-sectarian public schooling at the time.

The provision of the state constitution that is in question is Section 3, which reads:

SECTION 3. Religious freedom.--There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

The ballot proposal is to remove the third sentence from this section and add an additional sentence which reads:

Individuals or entities may not be barred from participating in public programs because of their religion.

This addition is really a smokescreen because there are already protections against religious discrimination so this addition is completely unneeded and serves no legal purpose. The only purpose of this addition is to entice people to vote for the ballot measure thinking that by doing so they are voting against religious discrimination.

In addition, the proponents of the measure claim that unless they change the state constitution then funding that goes to organizations such a religiously affiliated hospitals, such as Baptist Hospital, etc., could lose their funding, but this is actually not the case as the funding for secular programs at these institutions has never been challenged and is protected.

For more information on this propose ballot initiative see the links below.

Debate over religious funding goes to voters - Newspaper article
Floridians might vote on church-state issue - Newspaper article
Florida Commission Takes Steps to Undermine Church-State Wall - People for the American Way
Florida Budget & Taxation Reform Commission - ACLU
Full Text of the Proposal - Florida Budget & Taxation Reform Commission

Oklahoma - House Bill 2211 - Primacy of religion over science in public schools

CSV — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:17:00 GMT

House Bill 2211 was recently approved by the Oklahoma House of Representatives. What House Bill 2211 does is it requires all public schools in the state of Oklahoma to provide public forums for all students to express their religious beliefs, and it goes even further to state that any student who gives a religiously based answer on work assignments based on his or her religious belief must have that answer counted as correct. Basically, this throws the whole point of education out the window.

As crazy as this bill may sound, a similar measure has already been passed in Texas, and this bill is making progress on its way through the legislature in Oklahoma.

If you live in Oklahoma, then you should certainly be contacting your local representatives. The state of Oklahoma doesn't have the greatest legislative website, but you should be able to find your local representative on it. The Oklahoma state legislative website is here: http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/

The full text of the bill can be read here (Oklahoma doesn't provide an HTML version, so this is a Google link): HOUSE BILL 2211

The text of the abstract is as follows:

An Act relating to schools; creating the Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act; requiring school districts to treat student expression in certain manner; directing school districts to adopt a limited public forum for student speakers policy; stating purpose of the policy; listing certain provisions; requiring school district disclaimers to be provided at certain events; prohibiting the exclusion of religious expression from the limited public forum; allowing student religious expression in class assignments; specifying standards for judging homework and classroom assignments; allowing students to organize religious groups and activities; specifying treatment of religious groups; allowing school districts to disclaim school sponsorship of student groups; requiring school districts to adopt and implement a limited public forum and voluntary student expression of religious viewpoints policy; specifying that school districts adopting the model policy are compliant with the act; setting forth the Model Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Policy; defining term; providing for student expression of religious viewpoints; providing for student speakers at nongraduation events; establishing public forum limits; providing for notification of eligible students; specifying subject limitations; requiring distribution of a school district disclaimer; allowing certain student speakers based on special positions of honor; providing for student speakers at graduation ceremonies; establishing limited public forum; specifying student eligibility criteria; specifying topic limitations; allowing certain student speakers based on special positions of honor; specifying subject matter; requiring a written disclaimer on graduation programs; providing for religious expression in class assignments; requiring homework and classroom work to be judged on certain standard; providing for the freedom to organize religious groups and activities; specifying treatment of religious groups; allowing school districts to disclaim sponsorship of groups and events; providing for codification; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.

It is defiantly worth it to read the full text of the bill. Interestingly, the bill claims to be a bill for "religious freedom", but it is clear that in fact the bill would reduce religious freedom, because the contains within it specifications for religious discrimination. The bill plainly states that only approved religious views will be allowed, and that certain people "people of honor" will be given specific privileges for religious expression. Obviously under the bill, only normative religious viewpoints would be allowed to be expressed.

So the bill has numerous problems. Not only would it be absurd even it is were fair, but it clearly isn't even fair, giving the schools the ability to favor certain religious views over others.

Here is an article on the bill: Bill promotes school religion at expense of education

Incidently, this bill was co-authored by Sally Kern, the woman who recently claimed that homosexuals are a greater threat to America than terrorists. See: http://newsok.com/article/3214388/1205182355

Celebrities host national Separation of Church and State event - March 26th

CSV — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:27:00 GMT

Put this event down on your calendar.

On Wednesday March 26th Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Interfaith Alliance will be hosting a national Separation of Church and State event with the participation of major activists and celebrities. The event will be hosted in 25 cities around the country and simulcast (I'm not sure to where) by Progressive Media Agency.

The locations for this are:

AR Little Rock Breckenridge Stadium 12 5:00pm
CA Sacramento Natomas Marketplace Stadium 16 6:00pm
CA Mountain View Century Cinemas 16 6:00pm
CA San Diego Mira Mesa Stadium 18 6:00pm
CA Woodland Hills Promenade 16 6:00pm
CO Denver Denver Pavilions 15 7:00pm
FL Jacksonville Regency Jax 24 6:00pm
FL Tampa Citrus Park Stadium 20 6:00pm
GA Atlanta RGL Perimeter Pointe 10 6:00pm
IL Woodridge Cinemark @ Seven Bridges 5:00pm
IN Indianapolis Galaxy Stadium 14 5:00pm
MA Boston Fenway 13 6:00pm
NC Raleigh Movies @ North Hills 14 6:00pm
NY New York Union Square Stadium 14 6:00pm
OH Columbus Georgesville Square Stadium 16 6:00pm
OK Oklahoma City Tinseltown USA 5:00pm
OR Portland Lloyd Center 10 Cinema 6:00pm
PA Harrisburg Harrisburg 14 6:00pm
PA Philadelphia Riverview Plaza 17 6:00pm
SC Columbia Sandhill Cinema 16 6:00pm
TN Nashville Opry Mills Stadium 20 Plus Imax 5:00pm
TX Austin Metropolitan Stadium 14 5:00pm
TX Houston Houston Marq*e Stadium 23 5:00pm
VA Glen Allen Virginia Center Stadium 20 6:00pm
WA Seattle Pacific Place 11 6:00pm

Learn more about the event here: http://www.firstfreedomfirst.org/simulcast-event/learn-more/

RSVP for the event here: http://www.firstfreedomfirst.org/big-event/

Discuss meeting up for the event among CSV members in our forum here: http://secularvoters.org/forums/p/67/144.aspx#144

Florida - Conflict over teaching evolution still on-going

CSV — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:48:00 GMT

Despite a victory last on in Florida over the passing of new science standards that strongly support the, indeed mandate, the teaching of evolution in public schools, the fight is still not over. The state's science standards were revamped last month, and as a part of that revamping the teaching of "evolution" was clearly mandated with strong language that was developed by scientists. In a supposed compromise with conservative opponents, however, the words "scientific theory of" were appended in front the the word evolution however, though many science advocates really have no problem with this. Having felt that they lost this battle, many opponents of teaching evolution are now pressing on to continue to try to find ways to allow teachers to avoid teaching the subject or to allow them to teach alternatives to evolution.

The new approach that it appears will be taken in Florida is one that everyone who has a concern for science standards and the value of facts should be worried about, and it is one that I believe we will be seeing more of. The new approach is to put forward "Academic Freedom" legislation, using scientific and academic terminology, but clearly intended to undermine science. The "Academic Freedom" approach is worrying because it eliminates all religious connotations and talks about "the full range of scientific ideas" (meaning "scientific ideas" that are not accepted by the scientific establishment), making this type of legislation much more difficult to oppose in the courts, and of course "Academic Freedom" always sounds appealing, who isn't in favor of "freedom" right? This is all part of a long-term planned process outlined by the Discovery Institute to slowly chip away at the science standards and to try and make the scientific establishment look like the ancient Catholic Church, with the "Intelligent Design" advocates playing the role of the martyrs for the "new" and "challenging" "scientific" ideas (which are in fact actually the old ideas of the Church).

So, for those of you in Florida who thought that the battle was over and that your state's scientific curriculum was now safe, you still need to keep and eye out and to be especially mindful of the political figures in the legislature who may be involved with a new "Academic Freedom" bill.

For more information on this see:

Here is the new "Academic Freedom" bill in the Florida Senate:

Senate 2692: Relating to Teaching Chemical and Biological Evolution

Here is the website for the state senator who introduced the "Academic Freedom" bill:

Rhonda Storms - Republican - District 10 (Tampa area)

Here is the Discovery Institute model "Academic Freedom" bill and petition for "academic freedom":

Academic Freedom Petition

New York - "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"

CSV — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:43:00 GMT

In 1993 a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed at the federal level. This act basically greatly empowers individuals to claim a religious reason for breaking the law, and puts a significant burden on law enforcement to show why it is important to be able to enforce the law on an individual if that law violates their "religious beliefs". In practice, the use of this law has been struck down by the Supreme Court several times.

Nevertheless, following the passage of this act at the federal level, several states have gone on to pass their own state versions of this act, typically with slight variations to it.

Now there is an attempt to pass a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" in the state of New York. This effort was launched by Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer and Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. The effort to pass a Religious Freedom Restoration Act is being heavily pushed by Democratic legislators in the state at several levels.

At present the Institute for Humanist Studies has a lobbyist working on the issue in opposition to the bill. In addition, the New York Times has written an article about the IHS efforts to combat the bill. From an IHS post on this bill:

"This bill isn't about restoring religious freedom. It's a Religious Excuse Act," said lobbyist Jennifer Lange of the Albany-based Institute for Humanist Studies. "By creating a two-tier standard of law, which gives special rights to religion, this legislation may embolden people to start using religion as an excuse to break laws that were made to protect society."
...
"In practice, RFRA not only pits the religious against the nonreligious, but religion against religion," Lange said. "The real motivation behind pushing these bills might be to give a financial benefit to certain religious groups in New York, since this law would allow religious organizations to get around zoning codes. No such perks go to the nonreligious, of course."

Related information on this bill from the Institute for Humanist Studies:

New York Times article on IHS lobbyist:

A Pragmatist and a Lobbyist on Atheism

Legislative resources:

If you live in New York you are certainly encouraged to take action to contact your state political leaders to voice your views on this bill. You can do that through the IHS website:

http://humaniststudies.org/policy/rfra.html#opp

"In God We Trust" Campaign

CSV — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:23:00 GMT

There is currently a campaign underway to increase the display of the motto "In God We Trust" in public places. This campaign is most forcefully targeted at the public schools with "In God We Trust" posters. This campaign is being organized by the American Family Association, a Christian activist organization.

The American Family Association has been successful in getting "In God We Trust" placed in public locations around the country.

The American Family Association has a grass roots campaign currently underway to encourage their followers to contact public officials to urge them to participate in this campaign. In the face of these types of actions, those who are opposed to this campaign have to do likewise as well. Anyone opposed to this campaign is encouraged to contact their state representative denouncing this campaign and heralding the role model set by the founders when they selected "E Pluribus Unum" as our nation's motto. Likewise, contacting (and joining) organizations such as the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation to ask for support on this issue is encouraged.

To contact your state representative visit: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

This issue also highlights the importance of grass roots politics and voting at the local level. Most of the effort of this campaign has been focused at the city and county level. The campaign organizers have readily found sympathetic, and constitutionally unconcerned, public officials at the local level who have largely implemented the displays of these posters and other "In God We Trust" symbols without any kind of public discussion or anything. To a large degree it has been a matter of specific public offices simply deciding to display this motto as they see fit. This is where the importance of local politics comes into play, and this is where, at the moment, Christian Conservative organizations are having a lot of success.

See:
'In God We Trust' Poster Campaign (American Family Association)
Campaign to display religious motto sees some success (LA Times)

Wyoming - Nomination of Christian Nationalist Richard H. Honaker to District Court

CSV — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:52:00 GMT

This posting is passing on information from the Secular Coalition for America. Honaker has not yet been confirmed for the position. Please visit the link at the bottom of the post for more information on how to take action.

Honaker advocates that the U.S. Constitution created a Christian nation. In a speech to the 2005 Homeschoolers of Wyoming convention, he claimed that "As Americans, if taught accurately, history can teach us that the greatest American patriots and leaders were Christians, and that there is indeed a Christian basis for American institutions of law, government, and business."

From statements like "I came to know that if the Bible is true, if Christianity is true, then it is true in family life. It is true in economics. It is true in law, and it is true in all facets of human endeavor," it is clear that Honaker’s religious beliefs would take precedence over the U.S. Constitution.

Secular Coalition for America: Oppose nomination of Richard H. Honaker to U.S. District Court for Wyoming

Understanding Politicians' Religiously Coded Language

CSV — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:24:00 GMT

Politicians have used religious references in their speeches for a long time, but over the past 30 years major politicians catering to the views of the Christian Right have increasingly used "religiously coded language" to attempt to appeal to their evangelical and Christian conservative constituencies, while trying not to sound too overtly religious in their language. "Religiously coded language" is language that employs the use of religious phrases that are not popularly understood by the majority of people, but which are recognized by devout believers.

In America this basically means the use of Christian references to the Bible or to concepts or themes that are widely used by evangelical preachers, but which are not commonly used outside of the church. The average person often fails to recognize that these phrases have anything to do with religion, while these phrases reinforce the trust and religious convictions of the devout.

Ronald Reagan used religiously coded language as well as overtly religious language in his speeches, which played a significant role in cementing support for him among the burgeoning Christian Right movement.

George W. Bush, however brought religiously coded language to a new level, in no small part because he had evangelical speech writers on staff. Now Mike Huckabee, himself a Baptist preacher, has even trumped George W. Bush.

It is important to keep in mind the difference between "religious language" and "religiously coded language". Religious language is what it is. It is language that is clearly religious in its nature or makes clear religious references. Many political figures throughout American history have used such language.

Then there is "religiously coded language", in which phrases or words are used that are not clearly religious and that most people don't recognize as talking about Christianity, or view the reference as only vaguely religious. While politicians who use religiously coded language also typically use overly religious language as well, the religiously coded language often has the effect of being more appealing to the devoutly religious and is a way to further enhance and fortify their language with additional religious references without sounding to the common public like they are going overboard in their religious talk.

Much of George W. Bush's language following 9/11 and during the lead up to the war in Iraq was framed in the context of a Biblical fight between good and evil. The Biblical themes of good and evil ran through almost all of Bush's speeches during this period.

One good example comes from a speech that President Bush gave in 2002 about the attacks on the United States in which he refers to the terrorists (presumably, though really to Afghanistan in general) as "the evil ones".

I am very proud of the U.S. military. They've done exactly what we've asked them to do. For those of you who wear the uniform, thank you. For those of you who have got loved ones who wear the uniform, thank you, as well. We're making steady progress in Afghanistan. The evil ones awakened a mighty giant. You know, we're a compassionate people, and we're a decent people, but if you come after us you will learn that you have made a big mistake.

"The evil one" is a term used throughout the New Testament to refer to Satan. It's a term that would be very readily identified with very specific themes in the Bible among some groups of evangelicals and fundamentalists, who often use this language and refer to these passages. To see the use of "evil one" in the Bible see: Search results for "evil one"

Most notably, since this was a line referring to the military, the symbolism is very similar to that of the "Armor of God" passage from Paul's epistle to the Ephesians, which is a very well known passage in evangelical circles.

Ephesians 6:
16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

During the 2003 State of the Union address President Bush stated:

Our fourth goal is to apply the compassion of America to the deepest problems of America. For so many in our country -- the homeless and the fatherless, the addicted -- the need is great. Yet there's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people.

In an interview with Frontline (linked below), Jim Wallis, a liberal evangelical, commented about this line as follows:

Evangelicals, like any group, have language that [its group members will] recognize, and that hymn is a very famous evangelical hymn. So every evangelical kid like me heard "wonder-working power," knew exactly right away what it was referring to, this wonderful old song. "There's power, power, wonder-working power in the blood of the Lamb," which is about the salvation in Christ.

But now the president uses it for a different meaning. He says there is wonder-working power in the faith and values of the American people. Well, that's not what the song said. That's not what it was about.

So here are all these evangelicals, and they say, "That's our song. That's our language. He understands us." What it's now about is wonder-working power in us, in the Americans, in our vision, our values, our place in the world.

NPR recently ran a story (linked below) about the religiously coded language of Mike Huckabee. In that story they noted that some of Mike Huckabee's references may be going unrecognized by many religious Christians because Biblical literacy is so low, even among Christians, but rest assured that the devout evangelicals, as the story itself demonstrates, understand these references. Some excerpts from there story are below:

We started by recounting this story: In November, as Huckabee surged in the polls, a student at Liberty University asked him what was driving his startling success. Huckabee responded, "It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people." ...it was Jesus feeding the hungry crowd.

...

"Sometimes," the former Arkansas governor told his supporters, "one small smooth stone is even more effective than a whole lot of armor." ...Huckabee was comparing himself to the shepherd boy David, who slayed the giant Goliath with one smooth stone right in the forehead.

...

"We've also seen that the widow's mite has more effectiveness than all the gold in the world." ... The widow's mite actually refers to a poor woman Jesus observed giving a small coin to God. It was all she had.

The use of religiously coded language is an interesting game that some politicians play. It is a game in which they try to speak directly to religious voters and assure them that they are one of them and that they share their values and beliefs. Its a game also of "insider jokes" and of playing on the "in-group out-group" dynamic, while trying not to really let the out-group know that they are actually the out-group.

Super Tuesday Caucusing Experience

CSV — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:58:00 GMT

Being a recent transplant to Colorado, not only had I never caucused before but I had never even lived in a state that held caucuses before, so I wasn't sure what to expect. Nevertheless things went pretty smoothly overall, given the circumstance of a turnout that was a little too much for the location to handle.

I started out by, first of all, making sure that I was registered to vote in the party of my choice a month prior to the caucus. Colorado has a closed caucus so that means that you can only participate in a party caucus if you are a registered member of that party. Once it got close to caucus time I went on-line to my county website and looked up my caucus location by entering in some of my voter registration information. Following the directions I was given there, I took my voter registration information with me to my designated neighborhood caucus location, which was a school that was practically walking distance from my house.

Prior to going to the caucus, however, I printed out a Coalition of Secular Voters badge, which I put into one of those plastic sleeves that you can wear as a pin and wore that out to go vote.

Upon arriving I found long lines, as expected, and crowded rooms where people were signing in to participate. Everyone was divided up into groups by precinct, each of which were relatively small, roughly 20-50 people each. The place was obviously over capacity and there wasn't a whole lot of organization. There was a lady there handing out Obama stickers to whoever wanted them, and it didn't take long to notice that a large portion of the people were wearing them.

When I came up to the table to sign in the woman who signed me in, the site director, asked me if I would take over the sign-ins for that precinct, which I did. The process was a seemingly arcane matter of asking people for their names and looking up their voter resignation number on a list and writing it down for them and having them then fill out a sign-in sheet. There was only one sign-in sheet (for procedural reasons) so it took a while to get everyone signed in. People kept asking me for instruction on what to do next, to which I told them I had no idea because I was simply drafted to sign people in and had no instructions myself.

Some time about 30 minutes after the scheduled starting time we began the actual voting process, at which time I made my way out into the crowd. The process was initiated by first listening to the site director read a bunch of rules, some of which seemed kind of humorous, especially the provision for breaking a tie by drawing lots or flipping a coin, which got a reaction of bemused laughter from the crowd, obviously recognizing the absurdity of such a rule.

After the rule reading was completed, the site director asked for someone from my precinct to volunteer to be a precinct captain, which is who runs the voting processes and tallies the results. No one raised their hand and everyone stood around looking at each other, so I volunteered and went back up to the front of the room. This was probably a good thing because once I got a look at all of the rules I could see that some people hadn't filled out their sign-in sheets properly so I called them back up to make some changes. The other main aspect of this "job" was determining the number of delegates our precinct would be able to nominate and the threshold for candidate support.

The voting began by asking for a show of hands for supporters of each of the candidates listed, which was every Democratic candidate that had run for president, even people who had already dropped out. We then informed people whether or not their voting block met the threshold for support and if they didn't they then could choose to vote for someone else in the official poll. In our case, everyone voted for either Clinton or Obama so this wasn't an issue, although Clinton actually barely made threshold in our group.

Two different precincts were voting in our room, and both overwhelming went for Obama, by a margin of almost 4 to 1 (it actually was 4 to 1 in my group, but a little less in the other).

At this point we had to "elect" delegates to send to the county convention. Ironically, since I was up at the front taking care of business, I wasn't able to get into my group and participate in that process before the people back there had settled on their delegates, so I didn't become a delegate. I put myself down as an alternate though, but I don't expect to be called. That would have been interesting though.

The county delegates then go give their vote in a county election process, where they select state delegates, who then go on to the national convention. It seems like an interesting way to get involved in the political process, but it also seems like a process ripe for abuse. A Clinton supporter could have easily voted for Obama after seeing the low Clinton support and then become a delegate and then can go to the country convention and vote for Clinton.

After the presidential vote there were a few other items of business, but most people didn't stick around for that, nor did I after a certain point. The interesting thing about this part is that you can vote on party resolutions, which are just basically statements that are supposed to influence the policy positions of the democratic party in your district, and on up the chain, etc. You can introduce resolutions there at that time, but there are also ones that are already prepared. I wasn't prepared for this, and thus didn't introduce anything. But, this seems like a good opportunity for introducing a resolution on separation of church and state, which is something that I will keep in mind for the future. The obligatory "Impeach Bush and Cheney" resolution came up, which got resounding cheers, 100% support, and a few chants of "send 'em to prison".

The whole process actually took about two hours and was pretty enjoyable and relaxed. Everyone basically was just hanging out, chatting, and making jokes most of the time.

Caucuses definitely have their problems, and in many ways open primaries seems like a better option, but the one nice thing about the caucus process is that it does give you the opportunity to get more involved, and that is a good thing. There is also a lot more interaction and participation with your peers so that makes it more rewarding in some ways. In reality I don't think it takes much longer than voting in many cases. While primaries don't typically take two hours to vote in, I have voted when it took more than two hours to vote, with most of that time spent simply standing in line.

I'm glad I participated and plan to caucus in the future.

Colorado - Prayer/Meditation Time in Public Schools - 2007-2008 #33

CSV — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:54:00 GMT

This is regarding a proposed ballot initiative for a Constitutional Amendment to adopt a time for prayer and medication in public schools in the state of Colorado. As of this posting, this initiative had not yet been approved to make it only the ballot, but it is still in committee.

This proposal was submitted by the Urban World Church.

This measure would seek to do the following:

To provide students in public schools a five-minute period of time at the beginning of each school day, to be called "Private Meditation", during which the students can invoke private or group prayer or have quiet time for their own personal meditation, reflection, or curricular purposes.

The original proposal

The committee discussion on the proposal

The committee discussion seems to be sufficiently skeptical of the intentions and constitutionality of the measure. There does not appear to be enthusiasm for approving the measure, but it has not yet been turned down either. If approved it would be on the ballot during the 2008 presidential election in November.

Colorado - Constitutional Ammendment "Definition of a Person" - 2007-2008 #36

CSV — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:31:00 GMT

While this is not strictly a secular or church and state issue, the issue is nevertheless being driven by religious motives and is part a national Christian Conservative platform. The Coalition of Secular Voters does not take any position on this proposed amendment, it is merely raising awareness of it.

During the national elections in November 2008 there will also be a state Constitutional Amendment on the ballot in Colorado that proposes to provide a "Definition of a Person". This proposed amendment would define a person as a fertilized egg, granting all constitutional rights to that fertilized egg. If this were to be passed it would effectively challenge all forms of abortion in the state, as well as the operations of fertility clinics, forms of stem cell research, and even some forms of contraception. Under the amendment as it is currently written there is even the possibility that women could be charged with manslaughter for having miscarriages.

The proposed amendment is here:

Proposed initiative measure 2007-2008 #36, concerning the definition of a person

Some articles written about it are here:

Complications at Conception

Colorado Court OKs pro-life ballot initiative to expand definition of personhood

Again, this will be on the ballot for voter approval in the state of Colorado during the 2008 presidential elections that are held in November.

House Resolution 888 - Creation of "American Religious History Week"

CSV — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:31:00 GMT

On December 18, 2007 a House Resolution was introduced that would create a new "American Religious History Week" for the purpose of "teaching" Americans about the role of religion in American history. However, as a part of this resolution dozens of false or misleading statements are presented as "facts" supporting the role of the Christianity in American history. This list of "facts" paints a very distorted impression of real American history ans seeks to write such statements into law and no-doubt to establish the guidelines of the "religious instruction" that would be given to American students during "American Religious History Week." It is important to note that is a binding resolution, not a non-binding resolution.

There is actually a very good chance that this resolution will pass. A similarly worded resolution regarding Christmas passed just days before this one was introduced. Ultimately these resolutions are part of an effort to re-define America as an "officially Christian nation".

It is important to write to your congressman and make your voice heard in opposition to this resolution.

The Secular Coalition for America already has an action alert for this resolution and already has a form-letter setup that can be used to contact a congressman. Their form-letter is setup for a "non-theistic" correspondent, but feel free to change that wording if that does not apply to you. See their action alert here:

Secular Coalition for America Action Alert on House Resolution 888

You can also contact your representative on your own as well, which is strongly encouraged (see links on Resources page)

For information that shows why much of what House Resolution 888 says is incorrect see:

History of Separation of Church and State in America

For other blog posts are comments on this subject see:

Daily Kos: Stop House Resolution 888

For the texts of this resolution see:

House Resolution 888 (pdf)

House Resolution 888 (html)

Barack Obama Only Presidential Candidate to Endorse Separation of Church and State

CSV — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:49:00 GMT

Of all the major presidential candidates running for the office of President of the United States in 2008, Barack Obama is the only one, in either party, to explicitly and strongly endorse separation of church and state.

You may be aware that Obama does appeal to religious faith and that he does speaking openly about his own religious faith, but he also clearly understands the difference between personal belief and government policy. Having said that, Barack Obama does certainly endorse religion in general and uphold religion as a valuable part of what he believes is the fabric of society.

Here is what Barack Obama has said about separation of church and state:

I went to a Catholic school in a Muslim country, so I was studying the Bible and catechisms by day, and, at night, you'd hear the [Muslim] prayer call. My mother was a deeply spiritual person. Her view always was that underlying these religions was a common set of beliefs about how you treat other people and how you aspire to act, not just for yourself, but also for the greater good. I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion. I'm a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I'm a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law.
Chicago Sun-Tim, "I have a deep faith", 2004

For one, the separation of church and state in America has preserved not only our democracy but also the robustness of our religious practice. After all, during our founding, it was not the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith.

This separation is critical to our form of government because in the end, democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

This might be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics involves compromise, the art of the possible. But religion does not allow for compromise. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policymaking on them would be dangerous.
Politics need not abandon religion, 2006

Obama's positions on religion are complicated though, and he has done a tremendous job of simultaneously appealing to religious voters while strongly supporting separation of church and state. Indeed some could argue that his open endorsement of religion in general affords him the ability to speaking in favor of secular government. Obama's views on religion and separation of church and state are no doubt, as he himself has said, highly influenced by his diverse background and upbringing. He comes from a mixed Christian and Muslim background and his mother happens not to have been a member of any particular religious group. He notes that his mother was very "spiritual" and felt that all religions shared some core elements of truth. Obama was, of course, also a law student at Harvard. With this diverse background it is no wonder that Barack Obama supports separation of church and state, and he appears to have done a good job of walking the fine line between personal belief and public policy making.

While Barack Obama does clearly speak to the religious interests of voters, and does in some cases tout the role of religion in benefiting society, he also speaks more strongly, and more directly, to the issue of separation of church and state than any of the other presidential candidates.

Coalition of Secular Voters Community Website Launch

CSV — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:53:00 GMT

It's time to get this site off the ground. The idea behind this site is basically to provide a communication and coordination tool for citizens who are concerned about the encroachment of religious influences in American government and politics. As everyone in America should be aware, Evangelical voters and the so-called "Religious Right" have exerted a strong influence on American politics at both the national and local levels for the past 30 years. The ability of these voters who exert such a major influence over American politics comes largely from the organization of these voters and the high turnout of these voters to the polls for elections at every level, from school board elections to presidential elections.

The goal of this website is to constitute a communications hub for matters of importance to citizens and voters who wish to protect and promote secular government and to encourage the type of organization, participation, and visibility that is required to effectively oppose the political influence of pro-theocratic voters.

This is just the beginning for this website, and there will be many more changes and improvements as time goes on. This is very much a community based project and will require the participation of members to make it a success. The content for this website will, by and large, come from the membership. Ideas on how to expand and improve are welcomed.

The original idea was to have a separate blog for every single state, but doing so would require an upgrade of the license for this site, which costs $1,000, so we are holding off on that for now. Unfortunately that means that local issues will have to be posted to regional blogs instead of state by state blogs, but if things go well then hopefully we will be able to upgrade to accommodate more blogs down the road to have a blog for each state so that local issues can be more appropriately catalogued. Nevertheless, the regional blogs should be enough to get us started.

Even if you do not wish to contribute content, if you support the mission of this organization then please join the site as a show of support!

Thank you,
CSV