When George asked me to speak here this morning, I wasn't sure why. Was it because of my involvement in the ACLU lawsuit involving the Covenant School's participation in a tax-free bond program? Or was it because of my connection with secular humanist organizations, most notably the Central Virginia chapter of Washington Area Secular Humanists? George assured me that I could wear whatever hat I like here, which was a relief. Secular humanists are never quite sure how they'll be received, and it's always promising to arrive at an event and not see a bonfire raging in the middle of the room. We do get a lot of bad press, mostly from people who've never even looked up secular humanism in a dictionary (assuming they know how to use a dictionary) - let alone met a secular humanist or bothered to learn anything about our views.

So before I start in on the General Assembly, I would like to give you some context by clarifying a few things about secular humanism. It's all true: we are completely lacking in moral concern, we are after your children, and, yes, we have gained complete control of the public school system. It's only a matter of time before a New World Order will prevail, when millions of religious people in the mid-Atlantic region of the nation will be at the complete mercy of godless, commie pinko (or maybe that should be "spineless" pinko) secular humanists - all 350 of us, with an average age of something like 63. (Yes, that's 350 card-carrying secular humanists in all of Washington, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, and Delaware. And we're one of the larger regional humanist organizations.)

Now that I have you quaking in your boots, let me give you a brief definition (or perhaps overview) of secular humanism as a sort of ground zero for the rest of my talk. From a brochure put out by the Council for Secular Humanism, our national affiliate in Amherst, NY: Secular humanists believe morality and meaning come from humanity and the natural world. They see no reliable evidence for the existence of any god or supernatural powers. And secular humanism has no divine commandments or holy writings. Humanists believe it is our human values that give us rights, responsibilities, and dignity.

Of course, explaining a world view in one paragraph is just as unsatisfying with humanism as it would be with democracy or Catholicism or any other complex point of view. What I sometimes say when people ask me to explain secular humanism in a nutshell is this: secular humanists are atheists who care. A nutshell is a tight fit, though, and unfortunately this one is no different. There are actually quite a few humanists who consider themselves agnostics or deists, and more than a few who attend Unitarian Universalist or Ethical Culture services. Maybe "religious skeptics" would be a more apt description. But atheists who care is a better soundbite. And the dirty little secret about humanism - or maybe it's really about religion -- is that there are probably many, many more humanists in church than in our groups. We know this because some of them show up at our meetings and tell us how long they sat in the pews, suffering their lack of faith in silence.

So, on to the principle of separation of church and state. I think it should be fairly clear from the picture I've drawn so far why secular humanists are staunch supporters of the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment. To folks like us, a government comprised of people who worship one god, many gods, and no god at all cannot help but create special classes of citizens when it adopts a stance that seems to encourage or nurture a particular point of view, no matter who's in the majority. It makes no sense to a secular humanist or, dare I say, to anyone who takes this part of the First Amendment seriously, that such a government would need or want an office of faith-based ministries, for example. Benjamin Franklin said it well: "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself, and when it does not support itself, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

What may surprise some people of faith is that secular humanists equally champion the free exercise clause, the part that guarantees religious freedom to every American. Our freedom to dissent relies on this clause every bit as strongly as the churchgoer's freedom to worship, and neither the free exercise clause nor the anti-establishment clause can meaningfully exist without the other. They must be in balance - two sides of one coin. It is that balance, or perhaps I should say the threat of losing it, which concerns secular humanists right now. We're seeing plenty of lip service given to religious freedom, but not enough to protection of both church and state from entanglement with one another, and quite a few signs that such entanglement will only worsen during the current administration.

By the way, if you'll permit me a short diversion, secular interpretations of the First Amendment are not newfangled, bleeding-heart, liberal ideas. In 1797 the United States wrote into a treaty with the Moslem nation of Tripoli a clear statement that, unlike European countries, the "United States [was] not, in any sense, a Christian nation." So unambiguous was the principle of separation of church and state in those days that Congress didn't bother to even debate the clause before passing the treaty, and President John Adams signed it at once, without any fear for his political future. Contrast that to today's political climate, when a man [George W. Bush] of sub-average intellectual disposition and questionable understanding of the issues can be elected - or, maybe I should say, installed by political coup - on a platform of born-again platitudes.

And he comes by that honestly. In the race against Bill Clinton nine years ago, this same man's father [George Bush] stood up in public to openly declare that "[he didn't] know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots." That such a statement could be unself-consciously made by the President of the United States without so much as a ripple - and that he actually judged such a statement helpful to his campaign -- says volumes about the change in climate since the early days of our country when Jefferson told his nephew to "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

So, what part of this political reality trickles into our Commonwealth? An ambiance that allows conservatives to succeed in getting some of their more rhetorical measures out of committee and onto the floor. I have to confess that I don't generally follow the General Assembly as closely as most of you probably do. My e-mail lists keep me informed about bills that might be of particular concern to me as a secular, pro-choice, pro-environmental, pro-civil rights female of liberal persuasion, and I act, or react, accordingly. Information that might be of relevance to local secular humanists - the area's "community of reason," as it's now suggested we call ourselves - I forward along. Our folks act on their own because our organization is prevented from its 501(c)3 educational tax status from overt political activism - and unlike some organizations we could name, we take that restriction seriously. We tend to group together with others of like mind on First Amendment issues, supporting organizations like the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way. This isn't a fight that any one faction can hope to win on its own.

But this isn't to say that humanists aren't concerned about the religious posturing of legislators who choose, for whatever reason, to ignore the very real needs of our public school students in order to promote measures long on grandstanding and short on action. The more notable ones this year, of course, have had to do with forced recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by all Virginia students, and the posting of the motto "In God We Trust" in every Virginia classroom. The former has now been withdrawn by its sponsor in a huff over his colleagues' refusal to mandate suspension for non-compliant students. In one of its former versions, a student would have needed a letter from clergy in order to be considered a conscientious objector; in other words, children lacking religious affiliation would have been unable to exercise their Constitutional right not to say the Pledge, as upheld by the Supreme Court in 1943. That such a measure would even be advanced in this form gives us some clue of the level of appreciation for religious diversity held by some legislators, so it isn't at all surprising that the "In God We Trust" measure is being pushed as well. Unless I missed some end-of-the-week announcement, this bill is still, I believe, in committee in the Senate after passage in the House.

Who could object to the posting of the national motto? asked its sponsor. Well, perhaps those of us who feel it's a dumb motto that should never have been adopted to begin with. A little history about "In God We Trust"…. this slogan was voted in by Congress in the 50s in a frenzy of anti-communism and McCarthyism, at just about the same time that the Pledge was amended from its original, secular form and forced on American school children thanks to the activism of the American Legion. Around this time "In God We Trust" began appearing on paper currency, money which until that time had displayed the original national motto, "E Pluribus Unum," Latin for "From many, one" - a sentiment of our plurality. By the way, coin currency has been stamped with many sayings throughout history, including "In God We Trust" and such common sense wisdom as "Mind Your Business." I hope you'll forgive me if I find the earlier "E Pluribus Unum" crafted by Jefferson, Franklin, and John Adams to be a far more eloquent and appropriate saying for a country such as ours than "In God We Trust;" in fact, I confess that in many classrooms even "Mind Your Business" seems to me more on target, but I wouldn't suspend kids for infractions.

Humanist parents, like many parents, would certainly object to a motto of "In God We Trust" being posted in their children's classrooms, although we can imagine worse. It's not that we don't want our kids to know that some people trust in God. Of course, they do realize this, and they are taught to respect everyone's right of conscience. They learn early on that our viewpoint is a minority one - 8 to 10 percent of the population, according to several polls. And humanist kids are raised to make their own decisions about religion, theology, and matters of conscience: to examine the evidence and decide on their own, even if that means not adopting their parents' life stance. So, theoretically at least, if not statistically, some of those children may grow up to "trust in God" themselves.

My objection to such a display in my child's classroom would have more to do with the message it sends: that those of our citizens who "trust in God" are considered more worthy of mention than those who trust in several gods, a god of a different name, a goddess, or no god at all. Ours is not an objection of humanistic proportions so much as of pluralistic ones. In the context of a public school classroom, the statement "In God We Trust" is simply a lie, for "we" must refer to all members of the class, not just monotheists of Judeo-Christian heritage, no matter how they might outnumber their classmates.

One might play devil's advocate and argue that the posting of "In God We Trust" would give teachers an opportunity to expose students to the history behind the motto, regardless of one's personal feelings towards the motto itself. I suspect this might happen in one place and one place only: high school history and government classes. Elementary teachers, assuming they had time to stop drilling kids for the SOLs … biology teachers … math teachers - most of these educators aren't going to see any context for a discussion of this type, know how to conduct it in a way that avoids First Amendment problems, or have any motivation for doing so.

Will it be the end of the Constitution as we know it for our children to find "In God We Trust" posted in their classrooms next fall? Of course it won't. But it will be another crack in the cherished wall that has protected religion from government, and government from religion, since Madison wrote the First Amendment. Perhaps it seems a bit more insidious because it targets schoolchildren, as do so many of these posturing measures. Let's hope that the Senate exercises some restraint with regard to this measure, and finds a little time to debate the real issues facing our schools today.

I want to thank you for inviting me today … it's been a pleasure.