Mobile Menu


Articles (11)

Name: Paul D. Redleaf, M.D.

Where I live: Lilydale, Minn., across the Mississippi from Saint Paul.

Where and when I was born: New York City, April 24, 1931.

Family: My wife, Rhoda, two sons and two daughters and their spouses, five grandsons, two granddaughters and one great-granddaughter.

Education: Great Neck High School, valedictorian, 1948; Cornell University, zoology and general studies, 1951; Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, 1955; internships and residencies, University of Minnesota, 1955-57. 1958-61.

Occupation: Internal medicine private practice in Saint Paul, 1961-80, part time 1980-83. Member, Chicago Board Options Exchange (trader in put and call options).

Military service: Captain, U.S. Army, 1957-59, serving at Fort Knox, Ky. How I got where I am today: (1) A great deal of good luck, healthwise and escaping the dangers of financial disaster on the CBOE. (2) Making the best possible choice in marrying Rhoda, a wonderful wife and absolutely perfect mother and grandmother. (3) Good decisions to leave the medical practice and options trading while ahead, and entrusting all my savings to my son Andy’s management.

Where I’m headed: Obviously, at 83, downhill. Hearing is going, no longer skiing but still playing singles tennis with buddies 10 years younger. Hoping to live out the years without dementia and eventually a good death, unburdensome to me and my family.

Person in history I admire: Obviously there are many, but I cast a vote for Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold, the only senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001.

A quotation I like: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” (Anatole France)

These are a few of my favorite things: Travel (having seen most of the U.S. and a good chunk of the world), classical music, good nonfiction books an periodicals

These are not: Noisy restaurants.

My doubts about religion started: While reading the biblical Book of Job in freshman English at Cornell. If there’s a God who can treat Job as he treats him, he doesn’t deserve worship. And the state of the world demonstrates that if there is a God, he is neither all-wise or all-just.

Before I die: I’d like to see some very bad actors on the Supreme Court gone and a Republican Party which could include someone like the late Jacob Javits, a U.S. senator from New York from 1957-81. (I still consider myself a Javits Republican.)

Ways I promote freethought: We’ve promoted freethought in our family. One daughter is a virulent anti-capitalist, and a son, to our chagrin, was a founder of the Federalist Society.

[Editor’s note: Paul modestly doesn’t mention his and Rhoda’s ongoing, generous endowment of the Redleaf Internship Fund, formerly at Carleton College, and now Sarah Lawrence, which allows FFRF and sother select nonprofits to employ summer interns.

Wall of separation in danger of crumbling

FFRF awarded Jared $400 for his essay.
By Jared Plotkin

In 2014, the principle of separation of church and state has been challenged in a variety of disturbing ways. Using code words like “religious liberty,” Christian conservatives have tried through the legal system to impose their beliefs on everyone. Hundreds of public schools across the country were shown to be teaching creationism, in defiance of federal rulings. Numerous bills were proposed allowing businesses to turn away gay customers based on the owner’s religious beliefs, with one so far, in Mississippi, signed into law.

Most recently, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court declared that not only are corporations people, they can be religious people, and that their “freedom of religion” trumps the rights of the actual people who work for the company. Each of these issues is an egregious constitutional violation. I wish, however, to discuss another development that is in many ways the clearest example of the way “religious liberty” has been misused to force one Christianity on the entire nation. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, the Supreme Court ruled that not only could a city council meeting begin with a prayer, but the prayer could be explicitly Christian. The case is notable for several reasons.

The New York town had a history of selecting only Christians to lead the opening prayer. Justice Elena Kagan noted in her dissent: “In arranging for clergy members to open each meeting, the town never sought (except briefly when this suit was filed) to involve, accommodate, or in any way reach out to adherents of non-Christian religions.” The 5-4 decision was also notable for the breakdown among justices. All the justices appointed by Republican presidents (and all Catholic) favored sectarian prayer, while all appointed by Democrats opposed it. The court’s split mirrors that of the town’s prayer-givers — the Christian majority imposing its views on everyone. The decision runs afoul of judicial precedent, which is increasingly becoming typical for this court. E.J. Dionne notes that “the court’s conservative majority is operating as a political faction” and is willing to embrace an activist role in order to achieve ideological goals.

Precedent like the “Lemon” test, which prohibits government entanglement with religion and ensures that policies involving religion serve a secular purpose, has been swept aside. Even more startling is how the “originalist” conservative justices have ignored the founders’ views on state/church separation.

The words of the majority opinion confirm this stunning departure from our roots. Justice Anthony Kennedy opined that the overwhelming majority of prayers were explicitly Christian was because town residents were “nearly all” Christian. Kennedy’s solution for those who object: Ignore the prayer or leave the room.

The agenda of conservatives who claim they want to expand “religious liberty” is revealed. They do not want religious liberty; they want its antithesis. They want to use the government’s authority to spread their beliefs to the exclusion of all others at taxpayer expense.

It’s no wonder that Justice Clarence Thomas filed a separate opinion with the majority stating that there’s nothing in the Constitution barring state and local governments from establishing an official religion.

Prayer at city council meetings might be a small issue, but the logic behind the majority’s view is not. Assuming that the court’s ideological makeup isn’t altered in the near future, this decision could open the floodgates to letting the religious majority force its views on the minority.

Those of us who believe that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion should be outraged.

Jared Plotkin, 28, Sacramento, is pursuing a master’s in political science at California State University-Los Angeles, where he’s the founding president of the Atheist, Agnostic and Non-Religious Student Alliance. He previously earned a B.A. in political science from UCLA-Irvine.

A haven from oppression

By Ashley Reynolds
FFRF awarded Ashley $400 for her essay.

United States Constitution, Amendment I: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .” The reverence given to both aspects of religious liberty by our nation’s founders comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with our colonial history, as the New World served as a haven for the many who sought to escape the oppressive Church of England.

Today it would seem that history does repeat itself, as liberty-minded Americans once again find themselves as underdogs in a battle for freedom from religious oppression. A legislative battle is under way to radically redefine “religious liberty.” By definition, liberty means to have the greatest degree of freedom possible without infringing on another’s rights. Yet the purported religious liberties of some are clashing with the basic rights of others, and these clashes are being legally sanctioned, defying the spirit of the Establishment Clause.

Many states have almost no legal consequences for parents who decline medical treatment for their children in favor of faith-based healing. Similarly, despite the 109-year-old ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, all but three states grant parents vaccine exemptions on the basis of religion.

Gays and women are subject to ever-increasing discrimination despite constitutional protections. Nine states have what some disrespectfully call “no promo homo” laws denouncing homosexuality. Contradicting Lawrence v. Texas, some even criminalize consensual sex between adults.

And, after Arizona’s failed attempt to let business owners refuse service to same-sex couples for religious reasons, at least five more states are looking at similar legislation.

Perhaps one recent case stands above the rest as a red flag: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. In the fall of 2012, Hobby Lobby’s owners filed a lawsuit alleging that the Affordable Care Act forced the Green family to act in violation of their beliefs. The Greens falsely claimed that emergency contraceptives like Plan B and Ella, as well as copper and hormonal intrauterine devices, are abortifacients.

On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court sided 5-4 with Hobby Lobby. In the words of dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the majority ventured into a “minefield” by radically expanding the interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to include corporate personhood.

Within 24 hours, the court issued orders on six similar cases that extended the Hobby Lobby exception to all drugs classified as contraceptives. Within 48 hours, the court issued a procedural ruling in Wheaton College v. Burwell that the employer couldn’t even be compelled to submit a form to the government stating religious objections to contraceptives, as the mere act of doing so might trigger a third party to provide coverage.

Religious liberty no longer just means a woman has the freedom to choose whether or not to use contraception; it now means a company can choose whether or not to even give her the option.

Burwell is another chip off the decaying façades of Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, which have been weakened by a string of state laws and court rulings making contraception and abortion less accessible. The Religious Right is successfully launching attacks on women from a new strategic position. If they can’t deny reproductive rights entirely, they will circumvent them by cutting off insurance funding. America is an idea as much as a nation, the idea being that people are endowed with a basic human right to as much freedom as possible without infringing on others. Our founding documents reflect this desire for liberty, and we are governed by a Constitution that, in no uncertain terms, especially recognizes the importance of religious freedom. America can return to her roots as a haven from oppression, but we must take this clear stand: One’s freedom ends where another’s begins.

Ashley Reynolds, 28, Perkins, Okla., is pursuing an M.S. in teaching, learning and leadership with an option in secondary social studies education at Oklahoma State University, where she earned a B.A. in political science in 2010.