These questions are being debated both within the halls of government and outside in the public square. Within many churches, the idea of separation of church and state is anathema. In fact, the religious right seems to think that any law that moves to restrict the injection of religion into a public forum is, in fact, religious discrimination. It would seem that to them, freedom of religion does not include freedom from religion.

I was raised Christian, and I find that Christianity is the best way that I am able to understand the world. However, many Christians have taken Christ out of the faith. Jesus did not demand that he be heard. In fact, he said, “Blessed are the meek.” He did not go apoplectic over a Mosque being built in a nearby town, and he most certainly did not demand that anyone receive a “religious exemption,” allowing them to discriminate.

The rule of law is meant to save us from the dangers of religious discrimination. It is not meant to codify such discrimination. Government must be completely secular, and religion should not control public policy. In fact, what really separates us from a theocracy like Iran if we allow religion to be in the law? Sadly, I’m afraid this current political and religious climate won’t change anytime soon, and that does not bode well for our future.

Here is a great quote from her talk:

If we’re going to make progress on this issue [of contraception], we have to be really clear about what our agenda is. We’re not talking about abortion. We’re not talking about population control. What I’m talking about is giving women the power to save their lives, to save their children’s lives and to give their families the best possible future.

If you would like to watch the whole thing, I’ve embedded it below.

Clarence Darrow (left) and William Jennings Bryan (right) during the Scopes Trial in 1925.

As if the Scopes Monkey Trial wasn’t enough of an embarrassment for the state, the Tennessee legislature has seen fit to enact a law that allows teachers to question the veracity of evolution in the classroom. Now, if there were other credible, evidence-based theories available, I would have no problem. However, this is quite simply a Trojan Horse that will allow the conservative majority in the state to sneak “Intelligent Design” into the classroom. Basically, any teacher can introduce their own personal biases into the classroom under the guise of critical thinking.

In an attempt to head off a lawsuit from the ACLU, the sponsors of the bill included language that prohibits talk of religion. However, I know of no other opposition to the theory of evolution than from the religious right. In a brilliant move, they have even sought to turn the debate around, and accused opponents of the bill of being against teaching students how to think critically.

Of course, the theory of evolution is not the only scientific concept under attack. Climate change, a favorite whipping boy of the right, has also been allowed to be questioned by teachers that are so inclined. Now, I’m not opposed to honest academic debate, but the fact that this comes from the Republican dominated legislature, tells me that honest academic debate has nothing to do with it.

In the end, this is, quite simply, a repudiation of science and reason. There are those of my fellow Tennesseans that believe that the Bible is a literal play by play of the origins of the universe. They cannot grasp the thought that, perhaps, God set our natural order in motion, and that evolution was the way it all played out. While there is no factual proof that we evolved from lower life forms, the science suggests that we might have. Science does not deny God. In fact, it serves to demonstrate the wonder and glory of the Almighty. If only we would get the memo.

However, I received this email today, and it really bothered me. Why would anyone who values freedom and progressive values try to stifle free speech? I sent the following response to them, and I truly hope they take heed.

I am typically very supportive of your petitions and causes, but I have to draw the line with your petition that is meant to remove Rush Limbaugh from the air here in Nashville, TN.

Please do not assume this makes me a supporter of Limbaugh’s. In fact, I think he is a vile and disgusting human being. However, this feels dangerously close to an attempt to stifle free speech. We cannot crow about OWS protestors having their speech stifled, while at the same time trying to stifle speech we don’t like. That is the tool of those in power. It is not a tool that progressives should be using. We are better than that.

Instead, we should continue to highlight Limbaugh’s frequent misdeeds. In fact, the spotlight he has been in since his Sandra Fluke comments have already made him radioactive.

Please don’t use petitions like this to advance progressive causes. It looks much like what the country did to the Dixie Chicks after comments made by Natalie Mains after the start of the Iraq war. Vile speech is still protected speech, just like politically unpopular speech is protected.

This is just my two cents, and I hope you can take it to heart. I would hate to see the progressive cause be harmed by you doing the same things that we so often rail against.

It brings awareness to something that many of us might not have known about. We can use it as a jumping off point to learn more about Uganda and Joseph Kony, and use that knowledge to influence the people in power to help. This is where I think the critics of the video get it wrong. Regardless of whether the video tells every aspect of a complicated story isn’t as important as the colossal awareness that is being brought forward. Joseph Kony wasn’t on the radar of our country’s leadership, but he most surely is now.

One aspect of the criticism that I do find to be valid is whether military engagement of Kony is a good idea. We’ve seen how military action aimed at taking out terrorists has worked in other parts of the world. In the end, a lot of innocent civilians lose their lives. That alone should give us pause before advocating military action.

At the end of the day, regardless of the complexities of this story, I see nothing wrong with bringing this man’s crimes into the light. Also, I see nothing wrong with criticizing the way in which his story was told. That is how we learn about the greater, nuanced story. That is how we can use our greater understanding to affect change in a positive way.

UPDATE 3/23/12:

There has been a lot more come out about who funds Invisible Children, the group behind Kony 2012. The reaction of the Ugandan people regarding the Kony 2012 video should also be taken into account. I do wonder about the motivation of the people behind the video. Most troubling, it appears that many of the donors to Invisible Children promote homophobic hate speech. I do not support that, and certainly won’t give money to an organization that promotes that. I have not, and don’t plan to, give money to Invisible Children. Nevertheless, I don’t see Invisible Children promoting anti-gay and homophobic ideology. At least that is the case with the Kony 2012 video. I do think Joseph Kony needs to be brought to justice, and I don’t see that as being a point of contention.

The Church is going to be different things to different people. Some would say it is a gathering place to worship and fellowship with one another. Others see it as a place to receive moral instruction. Christ had another, higher, calling for the Church. It meant feeding the hungry, providing care to the sick and giving shelter to those that don’t have it. Many churches seem to have lost sight of their higher calling.

Perhaps one casualty of the Great Recession that isn’t talked about much is the devastation on church’s bottom lines. At the same time Americans were racing to buy homes they couldn’t afford, many churches were doing the same thing. Loans were cheap, and money for building projects was easy to come by. The church I grew up in fell into such a trap, and have subsequently lost their way.

Now, they are deeply in debt, and they are cutting their benevolence ministry. I find I am feeling quite a bit of anger. You see, this church was virtually debt free after they completed a major fundraising campaign in the 1990′s. They called it “Blessed to be a Blessing”. The idea was, of course, that we who gave the church money to pay off the debt on the church building were going to be “blessed” because we helped the church. Because this debt was being paid off, the church was supposed to be free to do the true work of Christ.

Unfortunately, this is not how it played out. They embarked on another huge building project that put themselves in massive debt. When churches put the size of their buildings ahead of their true mission, then they have completely lost their way. Jesus commanded his followers to take care of the downtrodden and the hurting. This in no way involves building a gym and a workout facility.

I am upset about why they, and many churches like them, are in this position. Instead taking care of people that are hurting, they selfishly sought to create a monument to themselves. This is not what Christ envisioned when he commanded his followers to go and tell the world about him.

The Church in America has failed to uphold its true mission to love and help people. This is their legacy of shame. Here’s hoping that this prolonged period of hurting will produce leaders within the Church that have a better grasp of Christ’s true mission.

Naturally, Republicans are “outraged” at this encroachment on religious liberty. Apparently, they are not concerned about the encroachment on female liberty. They have no problem telling women what to do with their own bodies. At a hearing yesterday about this very issue, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) refused to let any women testify. Apparently, only men (and celibate Catholic Priests no less!) were allowed to give testimony regarding whether this was a violation of religious freedom. Lest you misunderstand, the President was not proposing that employers give out condoms when employees arrive to work. He was merely trying to ensure that if the employer offered insurance benefits, they will also provide contraception in the plan.

Beyond religious concerns (and many are valid), there are women’s health issues at stake. House Democrats had planned on bringing a current law student to Issa’s hearing, but were rebuffed. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) incredulously asked, “Where are the women?” Had they been able to, they would have heard about the student’s friend who lost an ovary due to her inability to afford contraception. Apparently, Republicans, and Catholic Bishops, are unaware that birth control is used for more than just birth control. It also protects a woman’s health.

The bottom line is social conservatives want to decide what everyone can do with their bodies. However, if you want to make your case for such nonsense, try avoiding this photo op.