[ Author Bio ]
Edward Tabash and Center for Inquiry attorney Nicholas J. Little just filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, scheduled for oral argument relatively soon, to curb the power of religious organizations to discriminate against their employees. Tabash and Little argue that religious institutions should not be able to bypass complying with otherwise universally applicable employment discrimination laws when hiring or firing employees who are not clergy or whose jobs do not involve proselytizing the faith.
Drawing on his own experiences as a devotee of a New Age religion, Tabash argues that the universality of searching for the transcendental, and the different sources attributed by people of different perspectives as the cause of lofty experiences, yields no additional evidence in our world of a supernatural being that undergirds reality.
A critical analysis of Faith on Trial by attorney Pamela Binnings Ewen. Whereas Ewen attempts to show that a trial conducted under the Federal Rules of Evidence would uphold the claim that Jesus was supernaturally resurrected following his execution, Tabash argues that the so-called evidence of Jesus' supernatural resurrection would not be admitted into evidence, thus the jury would not even get to hear it--let alone decide if it were true.
It is long overdue that people who do not believe in any god are elected to significant political office. Atheists must start electing some of their own, and Eddie Tabash, the only admitted atheist to run for political office in 2000, describes what is necessary for this to happen, and how we need to overcome crippling assumptions and prejudices and start getting politically savvy, just as the Christian Right has done.
What people don't realize is that it is already illegal to physically damage someone else's flag or the flag on some government property. Vandalism laws already prohibit damaging someone else's property. Thus, this amendment would remove constitutional protection for what you do with your own individually owned American flag.
Earlier this year, an actual blasphemy law was introduced into the New York State Senate. This measure would make it a crime to ridicule any religious belief or ridicule any concept of a deity upon which such beliefs are based in any public place. This bill is clearly unconstitutional in that it violates both Religions Clauses and the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. This bill would give religionists special rights to silence those who disagree with their beliefs, placing the state on the side of assisting religious believers in suppressing public expressions of dissent, thus violating the Establishment Clause. It would also punish people for expressing their views on matters of religion, thus violating the Free Exercise Clause. In prohibiting speech because of the specific content and message of that speech, this legislation violates the Free Speech Clause. The letter to the New York State Senate contains a comprehensive constitutional argument as to why this measure is completely unconstitutional.
Tabash asks that nonbelievers overcome any shyness and reticence that they may have and boldly chime in with their own "me too-ism." If gays can lament loudly and nationwide about the outrageousness of the Boy Scouts exclusion of them, nonbelievers must identically learn how to publicly protest the discrimination of their lifestyle and worldview by the Boy Scouts of America.
Congress recently resurrected by a margin of 11-7 in the Senate Judiciary Committee the Flag Desecration Amendment. It now moves on to the full U.S. Senate. The Amendment would substantially weakened the First Amendment by allowing branches of government to punish the physical desecration of one's personally owned replica of the American flag. This proposed amendment is particularly egregious because, in addition to gutting a core principle of First Amendment jurisprudence on the free speech, it also threatens the church/state separation clauses of the First Amendment. Since this amendment seeks to prohibit desecration, it is essentially a blasphemy law. Desecration is a religious term that applies only when something is deemed sacred. This amendment thus violates the fundamental tenets of a secular society by formally transforming a secular symbol into something sacred.
In this review of a debate between atheist historian Richard Carrier and fundamentalist Christian historian Michael Licona on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Tabash summarizes the arguments offered by both sides and offers a critique of their arguments. He also points out areas where Carrier could have stressed significant points more emphatically than he in fact did.
Totality Beliefs and the Religious Imagination chronicles a medical doctor's journey from traditional religion to Eastern-path meditation and mysticism, finally ending in nonbelief. The author writes in great detail about his own loss of any kind of faith in his personal journey toward atheism and naturalism. Although the author has come to reject all supernatural claims, he nevertheless apparently suspects that humanity cannot endure without hope in the existence of some unseen supernatural being. He seems to doubt that any secular worldview can ever satisfy the spiritual yearning of the masses. Reviewer Edward Tabash, a constitutional lawyer who is extensively involved in atheist activism, deeply appreciates the author's comprehensive chronology of the journey from religion, through mysticism, to nonbelief. Tabash has made a similar journey. However, Tabash does not embrace the author's apparent pessimism about ever persuading masses of humanity to give up their supernatural beliefs.
The president has nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Full legal equality for nonbelievers hangs by a thread even now. The Court has already gone very far in providing special privileges for the religious. In addition to generally favoring belief over nonbelief, Kavanaugh has let stand the Navy's preferential treatment of Catholics over Protestants, argued to exempt religious claimants from following laws applicable to everyone else, argued to allow proselytizing on elementary school grounds, written that keeping government ceremonies neutral in matters of religion shows hostility to religion and establishes atheism, and ruled in a way that obstructed government efforts to combat global warming, among other things.