Picture, if you will: A 17-year-old girl in a pharmacy the morning after, not a little horrified by her current dilemma.

Whatever transpired the night before – carelessness with a boyfriend, date rape, stranger rape – she now finds herself in a race against time to keep from getting pregnant.

“Plan B, Plan B,” she tells herself, scanning the shelves, remembering that this high-dose birth control can effectively block a pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse (although it’s most effective within 24 hours).

Nearly all major industrialized nations have approved Plan B without restrictions for many years, recognizing its efficacy in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Now, thanks to Tummino v. Torti, a recent judgment from a U.S. District Court, the day will soon be here when 17-year-olds won’t have to get a time-wasting prescription for this perfectly safe contraceptive, once erroneously tagged as an abortifacient.

Gone are the years of stonewalling and outright lies used by the Bush administration about the drug to turn the FDA from a science-based to faith-based arm of the government.

The Tummino v. Torti judgment exposes many “arbitrary and capricious” acts masquerading as medical due diligence. With pressure from the White House, the FDA had stalled confirmation of Plan B’s over-the-counter status for years citing bogus safety concerns.

One particularly egregious tactic was when the administration claimed the OTC-switch advisory committee lacked a “balance of opinion.”

I guess a cadre of medical and science professionals adept at research and clinical trials was a little too uniform.

Eventually, “Right to Life” ideologues with far less experience were tossed into the mix.

Still, science won out, and in 2003 the FDA’s Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee voted 23-4 in favor of eliminating age restrictions on procurement of Plan B.

That should have been the end of a long, hard fight, right? Wrong. The FDA rejected this advice – the only OTC-switch recommendation it had rejected in 10 years.

By approving the lowering of age restrictions on Plan B, the court simply recognizes that 17-year-olds with the wherewithal to connect a reckless night with preventive measures deserve our support.

What do they not deserve, even if their judgment often falls short? A bunch of political kowtowing dressed up to look like best-practice medicine.

Andrea Sarvady (w2wcolumn@gmail.com) is a writer and educator specializing in counseling and a married mother of three.

———

Opposing view

Shaunti Feldhahn: Bad ruling undermines parents

Perez Hilton

I’m afraid that I join gay rights activists in being confused as to just what “great opportunity” they forgo in not publicly defending Miss California against Miss USA judge Perez Hilton.

Ah, what the heck – I’m feeling tolerant, so let me state this unequivocally: Carrie Prejean has every right to voice her views on both gay marriage and, in her words, “opposite marriage.”

Let’s be clear that although this didn’t cost her the crown (Miss North Carolina was already ahead in two competitions), Prejean was subject to some awfully crass treatment by Hilton in the days following this low-rent ripoff of the Miss America pageant.

Of course, anyone familiar with “The Queen of All Media” expected the ensuing drama.

Mario Lavandeira, aka Perez Hilton, is an outrageous blogger who uses photos, captions and drawings to savagely rip on celebrities of all persuasions on a daily basis.

Being mean? Name-calling? Honey, that’s his bread and butter and the Miss USA folks were perfectly aware of that when they gave him the job.

Once more, pageant co-owner Donald Trump pulled America’s strings, and we did our little marionette dance. I’ve got to hand it to that guy.

Most serious activists for any cause are not going to lose their hard-won credibility by commenting on a made-for-TV blowup generated by a publicity-seeking provocateur like Lavandeira.

They’re also well aware that few Americans opposed to their viewpoint will be won over by any outlandish rant, agreeing instead that civil discourse does get you further.

On the other hand, sometimes an issue can stir within you such a passionate response that passionate words are required. “AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals,” the Rev. Jerry Falwell once declared. “It is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”

Cruel, alienating language usually backfires. Falwell’s horrific bigotry is now seen as such by the majority of Americans, whether or not they approve of gay marriage.

We’ve come a long way, and tolerance of one another’s viewpoints is a huge part of that. So I, too, encourage folks in the gay marriage movement to stay respectful and resist name-calling.

Yet know this: They’ll never stop fighting for all citizens to have equal protection and status under the law. Tolerate that, America.

Andrea Sarvady (w2wcolumn@gmail.com) is a writer and educator specializing in counseling and a married mother of three.

Good news! Our courts are going after child pornographers with a vengeance, using technology like cell phones and social networking sites to locate and trap these heinous criminals and throw the book at them.

The only glitch in this fight for justice? The “scum” appear to be our own kids.

Youthful hormones and high-tech communication have dovetailed as of late, and “sexting” is the result – racy pictures that teens send each other via cell phone.

Think this dangerous and vile behavior is part of an edgy subculture? A recent survey by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy claims that 20 percent of our teens are involved in sexting activities.

“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity,” Einstein said, making me wonder if he saw this one coming.

I’m shocked by how widespread this activity has become and grateful to live in a community filled with adults who are “on it” in a big way, from academic and home life consequences to strict monitoring of teen behavior.

Still, I’m more shocked by the way the law has swooped in to label young, impulsive teenagers as child pornographers.

Really? That’s how we fix this? A boy in Texas is arrested on child pornography charges for simply having a racy photo on his phone.

A 14-year-old New Jersey girl posts explicit pictures of herself on MySpace and could be forced to register as a sex offender under Megan’s Law.

Even Maureen Kanka, Megan’s mother, is appalled. “This shouldn’t fall under Megan’s Law in any way, shape or form,” the mother of raped and murdered Megan Kanka declared, understanding that the MySpace exhibitionist needs help, not an avalanche of legal restrictions that will ruin her life forever.

Legislators in Vermont are trying to stop the madness, creating a bill that would remove the most serious legal consequences for sexting kids, such as a lifetime on the state’s Internet sex offender registry.

Unfortunately, Vermont’s governor is disinclined to support such a bill, feeling that decisions about these charges should be left up to prosecutors.

Either Gov. Jim Douglas hasn’t been reading the same stories I have, or he thinks the best way to deal with impulsive teens is to brand them child pornographers and sex offenders.

Makes me kind of wonder if it’s our legal system that has exceeded our humanity …

Andrea Sarvady (w2wcolumn@gmail.com) is a writer and educator specializing in counseling and a married mother of three.

I still remember an Atlanta friend’s surprise when I told her about some volunteer work I had done as a child.

Then it was my turn to be surprised: She admitted that she didn’t think less religious families like mine did that sort of thing.

I was raised in a neighborhood where religion was both diverse and took a backseat to other shared values, with no apparent harm. Crime was low, kids were well-behaved and neighbors valued one another and the world we lived in.

I don’t disagree with Shaunti that a collective spiritual life can strengthen a family, and it’s true that most people believe in God; who said anything about “a collective delusion?”

Still, I’m astonished at her inference that the positive effects of spirituality on families prove the existence of a loving God. That really flunks the logic test and points to a complete refusal to believe that anything other than a life based on the Bible will enable a family to flourish.

Living morally with or without religious structure – that is what creates those positive effects, and that’s what a family needs. There are those like mine that focused on morality through other means, with terrific results.

I have a brother who took in a teenage neighbor and put him through college. I have a sister who is known in her small town for extensive work with underprivileged young women.

Then there’s my friend Mike, a caring physician, loving husband, great father and fourth-generation nonbeliever. He’s close to his extremely devout in-laws, who marvel at his strong moral fiber.

One night at dinner, they finally worked up the nerve to ask him: “How do you know the right thing to do?” Mike smiled politely and responded, “Because it’s the right thing to do.”

These conversations are hard to have, but deeply rewarding.

During a visit back home recently, I worked up the nerve to ask my most religious childhood friend if she wishes I had accepted Christ as my savior. “Well, that would be great,” Zoe gently allowed. “But I don’t need you to believe what I believe.”

Moral houses built on ground rich from many beliefs, weathering storms together – that’s always been the right neighborhood for me.

Morals the mortar of many homes

Andrea Sarvady (w2wcolumn@gmail.com) is a writer and educator specializing in counseling and a married mother of three.

John Mayer’s tepid anti-war ballad “Waiting on the World to Change” always bugged me – a slacker’s lament that makes excuses for its own lack of passion.

At least now the once-popular song is dated, and we’re no longer waiting to see if the world’s attitude toward us will change. It already has.

President Obama clearly has contributed to this changing world in his first 100 days. He’s authorized a staged withdrawal from Iraq, incorporating advice from top military commanders.

This policy, earning grudging approval from McCain and some concern from Pelosi, is bound to sit right with moderates everywhere.

He’s communicated unequivocally and directly to the Arab world, starting with an inaugural address that proclaimed a need to “responsibly leave Iraq to its people.”

The Decider has given way to The Diplomat, and the world likes what it sees.

Yet gaining global approval hardly requires turning tail; our buildup in Afghanistan demonstrates a focus not on fleeing conflict but redirecting resources where they can best help us fight our enemies.

The Pew Research Center just wrapped up an eight-year, comprehensive study of global attitudes toward the U.S., and stat after stat shows that our favorability rating took a nosedive since 2000, with the ongoing war in Iraq a major cause of discontent.

Yet even though we stood on shakier ground last fall before the election, many across the globe held out hope for better relations.

Those better relations were certainly evident during the recent G20 summit. There is some rock-star hype around Obama, to be sure, but it doesn’t account for the degree of his current global approval.

Far too much anger has been generated by past U.S. unilateral actions for other nations to fall in line just because they like Obama’s style. No, there’s a real change in the air, based on policy, not personality.

Will our Iraq pullout make us safer? Hard to say, given that there will always be those who wish us harm, even if their numbers lessen.

Yet when it comes to looking forward to the day that our global reputation is saved, rising phoenixlike out of the ashes of that one, disastrous move – well, the wait on that change is over.

Andrea Sarvady (w2wcolumn@gmail.com) is a writer and educator specializing in counseling and a married mother of three.

A research specialist carries trays of human embryonic stem cells at the University of Michigan Center for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Mich. The University of Michigan announced Monday, March 9 it was launching the state's first major embryonic stem cell research program since Micgigan voters eased restrictions on such work in November 2008. The university unveiled plans the same day President Obama signed an executive order that ends former President George W. Bush's limits on using federal dollars for stem cell research.

One could imagine scientists tossing lab coats up in the air as President Obama signed an executive order lifting restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

I believe that all of us will benefit from the gains that are bound to come from this essential position.

Those morally opposed to the use of discarded embryos want cures for diabetes, cancer and heart disease as much as the rest of us.

So they’re putting all their hope in the power of adult stem cell lines, an experiment in wishful thinking.

To be fair, adult stem cells are invaluable in providing blood-replacement treatment. Yet they just don’t provide all the answers – if they did, why would scientists seek out the use of embryonic stem cells? Do we think they have some nefarious, ulterior motive?

The bottom line is that embryonic stem cells have the potential to replace any kind of cell that has been damaged – a flexibility that adult stem cells simply can’t replicate.

That’s why embryonic stem cells are currently being used in a clinical trial to combat spinal cord injuries. (No such trial is being conducted with adult stem cells.)

Those morally opposed to the use of discarded embryos talk of dozens of “cures” that have arisen from the use of adult stem cells, but they’re really talking about helpful treatments, not lifelong, proven solutions.

Scientists around the globe fervently believe that embryonic stem cell research is our best hope of creating better treatments for a variety of conditions.

In fact, they’re more than willing to work with Congress, the National Institutes of Health and others to continue to develop strict and clear guidelines for the usage of these cells.

Today I asked a stem cell researcher how he felt when Obama signed the executive order changing U.S. science policy.

“It was a day of increased hope that we could develop cures,” he told me, adding quickly that this victory doesn’t erase the many political and scientific challenges that face him every day.

So champagne corks popping and cascading lab coats? Not so much.

Yet with a policy in place that gives scientists the tools they need to fight disease, we may one day soon have far more to celebrate.

Andrea Sarvady (w2wcolumn@gmail.com) is a writer and educator specializing in counseling and a married mother of three.

Since the conservative Washington Times announced, “The honeymoon’s over,” the day before Obama took office, I suppose it only makes sense that the GOP’s 2012 game plan is to blame the president for a market slide that began its descent a full year before he came into power.

Is the president turning us into – “Quelle horreur!” – Europeans?

Let’s take a closer look at just how much of this is Obama’s faute. (That’s “fault,” for those of you still speaking English.)

We know Obama didn’t invent the housing bubble or the credit crisis, we know he didn’t oversee the massive deregulation, all leading to the first large bailout on that other guy’s watch. And we’re pretty sure that the collective global economic meltdown isn’t his fault either.

In fairness, Obama is still learning how to walk that wobbly line that forces him to both chastise big business while he solicits our support for the government aid that might save it.

Yet any inference that the market began to falter in anticipation of an Obama presidency is way off base.

That was mid-September – around the same time Lehman Brothers failed, WaMu was rescued and it literally looked like every bank in the country could go under. (I suppose the market rally the week before the election came because people suddenly decided McCain had it in the bag? Hardly.)

These are uncertain times. It’s an era when a Comedy Central comedian feels more credible to us than an MSNBC analyst, where the once mighty GOP now turns for direction and inspiration from Jonathan Krohn, a 14-year-old with a knack for public speaking.

No wonder political panic is rampant on the right. “Socialist” hasn’t had much traction. I can hardly blame them for throwing “European” against the market research wall, hoping the slur will stick.

Americans aren’t terrified of turning into Europeans; they’re rightly concerned about a deepening recession that impacts their lives on a daily basis.

They have no trouble remembering and cherishing our proud capitalist roots, but you know what else sticks in their mind?

That the perfect storm of events that brought us to this point has little to do with the leader we’re hoping will bring us to shore.

Andrea Sarvady (ASarvad@gmail.com) is a writer and educator specializing in counseling and a married mother of three.

A glamour shot of young JonBenet Ramsey

Barbie just celebrated her 50th birthday, and still the debate rages on among concerned moms: harmless doll or body-image bruiser?

Barbie’s one thing, but I can’t imagine why there’s any debate over glitzy kiddie beauty pageants. They’re plain bad for girls.

Many of us were first exposed to this subculture when images of pageant princess JonBenet Ramsey inundated television following her 1996 slaying – images that Dan Rather referred to as “kiddie porn.”

That’s a fair assessment.

None of the parents involved in this world intend to make their pretty babies fodder for the photo and video collections of pedophiles. Yet that’s the result when they take fresh-faced children and publicly make them up into Hollywood starlets.

Seven-year-old legs are shaved for darker, often fake tans, preschoolers are fitted for hair extensions and false eyelashes, and even fake teeth are put in to mask missing baby teeth. Got nausea?

Sure, there are “natural” pageants too, filled with plain-faced kids sporting off-the-rack togs. Yet that’s not what inspired the documentary “Toddlers and Tiaras,” which was so successful that it morphed into a reality show on TLC.

With more than 100,000 entrants competing annually in what some estimate to be a $5 billion industry, this twisted subculture is going mainstream faster than you can say “Little Miss Sunshine.”

I’m sick of excuses for this exploitative trend – that it builds self-esteem, that little girls want to partake in these excessive and arduous productions.

What builds self-esteem is true competence; what little girls want is to feel special and receive a lot of attention from their parents. Surely, there are healthier ways to achieve those aims.

The economy is a disaster, but at least it may help kill off this exorbitantly expensive “hobby.”

Then maybe all the fabulous costumes and shoes and accessories owned by these families can stay where they belong – in the dress-up drawer at home.

Like many moms, I’ve got a drawer full of Barbies and a chest full of costumes, along with the belief that little girls have the right to play at starlet or princess to their heart’s desire.

Yet it should be their heart, their desire, that calls the shots. Grown-ups? Keep out of it, if you know what’s good for your kids.

Andrea Sarvady (w2wcolumn@gmail.com) is a writer and educator specializing in counseling and a married mother of three.

In this Aug. 14, 2008 file photo, United States' Michael Phelps swims in a men's 100-meter butterfly heat during the swimming competitions in the National Aquatics Center at the Beijing 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

Olympian Michael Phelps has shown some poor judgment lately, not to mention lack of savvy concerning the 24/7 populist media.

Yet if Phelps has truly devastated his followers, we’ve got much bigger problems on our hands than a stoned swimmer.

In the water, where one usually finds Michael Phelps, he’s won 12 gold medals. Out of the water, he behaves, for the most part, like a typical young guy – if a typical young guy had millions of dollars and his choice of beauty pageant winners and starlets to date.

I was fairly convinced after Phelps’ drunken driving conviction in 2004 that no one viewed him as a perfect role model on dry land. Yet his amazing feat in Beijing, (hardly assisted by the least performance-enhancing drug ever), served his country well.

Thanks to Michael Phelps, swim teams nationwide find themselves flooded with kids eager to learn a sport with lifelong health benefits.

So the official uproar?

A just-for-show circus. The U.S. Olympic Committee didn’t “do their part”; they gave their golden boy a meaningless snap of the goggles. He’ll be off probation in plenty of time for the world championships in July.

And the Kellogg Co. reaction?

Please. Forget about mere pot smokers, Kellogg’s loves junkies – well, the junk-food kind – and were just hoping to avoid jokes linking their sugary products to marijuana-induced “munchies.”

Sorry, that “Saturday Night Live” skit has already sailed.

Following his DUI in 2004 – involving substance abuse behavior that actually kills other innocent lives every day – Phelps was properly penalized and properly repentant, right?

Otherwise, all those sponsors wouldn’t have been so eager to have him hawk their watches and cereal, despite actions far more dangerous to society than an ill-advised bong hit.

“He’s a fast swimmer,” young Brent DeMartin explained back then about why he was waiting outside a courthouse for Phelps’ autograph.

There you have it: A 7-year-old clear on the concept that to want to swim like Phelps didn’t mean one wanted to drive like him or smoke like him or be like him in every way.

Of course, Brent may someday want to date like Phelps. After all, a kid has got to have a dream.

Andrea Sarvady (w2wcolumn@gmail.com) is a writer and educator specializing in counseling and a married mother of three.

Feel like a college education will soon be beyond your family’s budget? Good news! It’s not a safe place to spend four years, anyway.

At least that’s what I’ve gathered, watching lawmakers urge the public to storm the campus gates and protest courses and professors that look like a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Their mantra? Censor now; ask questions later.

Such lack of research recently put egg on the faces of two legislators in Georgia, who railed against governmental spending for courses in oral sex and male prostitution.

Rail against anything you like, but do your homework. They soon discovered that these are actually not courses at all, but areas of scholarly expertise that have provided crucial understanding of both teenage sexual habits and the AIDS crisis.

One of the crusading representatives, Calvin Hill, claimed his campaign had been “taken sideways by people who like the titillating words.”

Yet Hill’s embarrassing lack of investigation into the very work he was concerned about fully demonstrates just who was “taken sideways” by provocative subject matter.

There’s an art to putting together a rich educational environment, involving an extensive hiring and development process.

What qualifies politicians for the job? Nothing, especially when their sole focus is to appease a constituency flooded with selective, sensationalistic tales of “Professors Gone Wild.”

“Colleges and universities operate for the good of society as a whole,” I was reminded by John Curtis, director of public policy for the American Association of University Professors. “That’s why taxpayers, legislators, students and families invest in them – not only when they already agree with each lesson that is being taught.”

Makes sense, right? Nonetheless, certain groups keep touting insidiously named “academic freedom” and “academic diversity” bills.

These bills are designed to push intelligent-design theory into the science curriculum, force professors to tailor their lectures to appeal to pre-held views, even give students permission to reject an assignment with which they don’t agree.

Does that sound like freedom and diversity to you? It sounds like coercion to me. And now the same manipulative crew who used the “balance” argument to silence professors is trotting out a “budget” argument to try to achieve the same thing.

Governmental control of our intellectuals? That’s never been my view of America. Do you want it to be yours?

Andrea Sarvady (w2wcolumn@gmail.com) is a writer and educator specializing in counseling and a married mother of three.

President Obama signs the economic stimulus bill last week at the Museum of Nature and Science in Denver.

De facto GOP leader Rush Limbaugh took a lot of flak when he said that he hopes the Obama presidency fails.

Yet after listening to the foot-stamping tantrums of elected Republicans the past few weeks, it’s clear that they’re taking Rush’s obstructionist attitude one step further: They want you, the American people, to fail.

They want you to lose your job, not be able to find another one and wind up cursing Hope and Change from your bed on the sidewalk.

Harsh words, indeed. Yet I promise you, I didn’t move too fast toward this conclusion.

I first noted that many GOP strategists have joined the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl in promoting the fact that “the economy is still going to be there next week.”

Sure, the economy will “be there,” but in what form? Couldn’t we just keep saying that, week after week, until one day we wake up in Hooverville?

The stimulus plan isn’t perfect, but there’s no perfect solution here. One thing is certain: By the time the precise course of necessary action is known, it will be too late to make a difference.

So why not follow the lead of the man we elected to address the crisis just three months ago?

Ah, but then the GOP would have to compromise. Instead, they offer up an alternative bill that relies exclusively on tax cuts, then complain of being “shut out” when their plan isn’t adopted.

Other demonstrations of compelling leadership? Rep. Eric Cantor’s YouTube video that gleefully boasts of the House Republicans’ zero participation while Aerosmith screeches “Back in the Saddle” again.

“You can’t approach something this big with nothing but rhetoric,” Joe Scarborough chided his peers the other day.

Unfortunately, reasonable views like this within the party are being drowned out in a chorus of “Yes we can obstruct!”

Still, maybe we should have spent more time trying to bring a seemingly intractable GOP team to the table. After all, we’re searching for a plan designed to save a dying economy.

I mean, it’s not like this is a war in the Middle East or anything. Now that’s something you rush into . . .

Andrea Sarvady (w2wcolumn@gmail.com) is a writer and educator specializing in counseling and a married mother of three.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

My colleague is right: “Awkward questions” abound when it comes to race and gender picks – for both appointments and elections.

Yet I can’t help but notice that it’s only Democrats that have raised her ire on this topic.

If we’re going to tackle thorny issues of diversity in politics, we should first acknowledge that concerns about tokenism are highly subjective.

In general, the more the candidate in question has views that vary from your own, the more you may question the selection for high office.

Republicans wondered how much of Hillary Clinton’s popularity had to do with her gender; Democrats wondered the same about Sarah Palin.

Republicans wonder how much President Obama’s rise had to do with affirmative action; Democrats are now thinking the same thing about Michael Steele’s sudden ascent in the GOP.

The truth is that we can only speculate why Govs. Rod Blagojevich and David Paterson selected Roland Burris and Kirsten Gillibrand for these plum seats, which they’ll probably hold for only two years; the re-election rate for appointed senators is under 40 percent.

With the Blagojevich pick in particular, it seems sort of silly to wonder about tokenism when so many of the discredited governor’s decisions are suspect.

Burris’ lack of legislative experience could be a problem, but I can’t help but wonder if we’ll hear the same concerns about New Hampshire Democratic Gov. John Lynch’s recent selection.

Picked as part of a bipartisan trade that would allow Sen. Judd Gregg to leave his seat without losing it to a Democrat, in comes J. Bonnie Newman, a woman and a Republican – bingo!

Still, let’s give both Sens. Burris and Newman a fair shake. I’m not sure that “unforgiving policy problems” aren’t better served by at least some fresh eyes to the process.

Burris may well earn his place in the Senate. Newman has actually promised not to run for re-election in 2010, but her short time as a legislator may be productive. She’s an independent thinker whose common sense just might transcend pressure from both parties.

And who knows? Maybe someday there’ll be enough folks of various ethnicities and both genders in politics that we won’t find ourselves so caught up in these partisan musings.

In the meantime, let’s keep an eye on these “golden ticket” appointees – and an even keener look inward, at our own political biases.

Andrea Sarvady (w2wcolumn@gmail.com) is a writer and educator specializing in counseling and a married mother of three.

Shaunti Feldhahn

Should race or gender have a major role in Senate appointments?

Shaunti Feldhahn: Diversity should matter – a little

Andrea Sarvady: Concerns often colored by politics

Shaunti Feldhahn (scfeldhahn@yahoo.com), a married mother of two, is a conservative Christian author and speaker. Andrea Sarvady (ASarvad@gmail.com), a married mother of three, is a writer and educator specializing in counseling.

Andrea Sarvady

By Andrea Sarvady, Shaunti Feldhahn

Nonbelievers are rarely fist-pumping in the public square.

I watched Barack Obama’s inauguration speech in Washington, D.C., standing on my tippy toes to catch a glimpse of the Jumbotron.

Halfway through, our new president said something that caused one mainstream-looking young woman in front of me to pump her fist in delight.

“For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness,” he began, adding, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and nonbelievers.”

Nonbelievers? Did President Obama actually give a shout out to atheists and agnostics in his inaugural address? Yes, he did.

Although not on the level of my fist-pumping neighbor, I too was pleased with this purposeful inclusion. I’ve grown increasingly alarmed by how many of us have allowed our faith to seep into decisions of governance.

“Name one nonbeliever who holds high political office,” Jeremy Gunn challenged me on a recent phone call. “Just one.”

Gunn is the director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief and the author of “Spiritual Weapons: The Cold War and the Forging of an American National Religion.”

Noting that it’s de rigueur for anyone running for office to profess their faith, Gunn wonders, “Is it that we believe that people who say they are religious are more honest? What’s the proof of that?”

There is, as Gunn suggested, so much “social opprobrium” connected to atheism that campaigns to keep government secular are viewed as an aggressive attack on faith, rather than an upholding of the Constitution.

At any rate, nonbelievers are rarely fist-pumping in the public square. They walk among us quietly, with many of the same passions and concerns that unite most Americans.

Our political leaders recognize this fact. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have graciously acknowledged nonbelievers in speaking to the American people.

Yet try telling that to the religious leaders who took exception to Obama’s reference. As one put it to an AOL reporter, “He seems to be trying to redefine who we are.”

Really? Isn’t he just trying to show all that we are? Surely this patchwork that we’re so proud of won’t fray if we acknowledge that those who don’t share our belief in God still share our love of country.

Have a little faith, people.

Andrea Sarvady (w2wcolumn@gmail.com) is a writer and educator specializing in counseling and a married mother of three.

Are nonbelievers unfairly maligned in America?

Andrea Sarvady: Atheists part of melting pot, too

Shaunti Feldhahn: Moral compass must point to God

Andrea Sarvady (ASarvad@gmail.com) is a writer and educator specializing in counseling and a married mother of three. Shaunti Feldhahn (scfeldhahn@yahoo.com) is a conservative Christian author and speaker, and married mother of two.

By Andrea Sarvady, Shaunti Feldhahn