Church-State Separation

Jeff Mullin is a "Senior Writer" for the Enid, Oklahoma News & Eagle newspaper. A few years ago he wrote an article "poking fun" at atheists for having the unmitigated gall to suggest that traditional god-belief was exactly the same as belief in an Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be Her unseen curly mane.) He subsequently received a letter from an atheist who asked him what gave him the right to ridicule atheists for their lack of belief?

Nothing, apparently. He just likes to ridicule atheists. So, nice Christian guy that he is, he decided to do it again. This time in a column dripping with insincere pity for the poor, deluded atheists.

How very thoughtful of him.

More below the fold...

In what will undoubtedly be used to fire up the faithful about "judicial interference", the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled for the separation of church and state:

3rd Circuit: Coach's Moment of Silence Constitutes Endorsement of Religion

In a closely watched school prayer case, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a New Jersey high school football coach's First Amendment rights were not violated when school district officials ordered him to stop his practice of getting on bended knee with his players as they bowed their heads for a moment of silence before a game.

Reversing a lower court's decision in favor of East Brunswick High School football coach Marcus Borden, the appellate court found that since Borden had led the team in prayers for 23 years, his new practice of engaging in the silent acts of "taking a knee" and bowing his head would be reasonably perceived as an endorsement of religion.

Illinois state Rep. Monique Davis has apologized to Rob Sherman, who has graciously accepted her apology, for attempting to deny him his civil rights in a public hearing that he was invited to testify before last week.

Apparently it's OK to be a bigoted, unconstitutional, theocratic asshole if you're having a bad day.

One of our favorite guys, Rob Sherman, testified before the Illinois House State Government Administration Committee on Wednesday related to Gov. Rod Blagojevich's proposed $1 million grant intended for Pilgrim Baptist Church, and was blindsided by wackjob theocrat Rep. Monique Davis who seems to think that atheists don't have any right to exist, and that we are "dangerous to children".

[link] Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy -- it’s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.

I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?

I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous--

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court---

Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.

You can listen to the whole sordid thing here.

(Tip of the ballcap to Twitter and Hemant!)

I hate April Fools Day. I'm cynical and skeptical enough as it is, and when 4/1 rolls around, I tend to dismiss almost *everything* I hear or read in the news.

Combine that with never quite being sure when some religion is real or some kind of elaborate hoax (I mean, Scientology? Mormonism? Raelism? It's a joke, right?), and when someone sends me something like this, I really wonder:

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to step into two free speech cases, one involving a church that wants to place a religious monument in a park and the other on payroll deductions for labor union political activity.

Officials in Pleasant Grove City, Utah, asked the court to step into the lawsuit brought by the religious group known as Summum, saying that if the group prevails, governments would be inundated with demands to display donated monuments.

I find myself conflicted. I have no ready resolution to my problem. As it says in my introduction on the sidebar, I'm a liberal libertarian with conservative leanings. What that really means is that I'm a registered Independant who doesn't concur with the party platform of the Republicans and Democrats. I am, with caveats, an Objectivist. I may address the hows and whys of those tenents at another time. I promised my conundrum though, and here it is.

These parents allowed their child to die because of their religious beliefs. They allowed a sentient being, a person with their whole life ahead of them, to perish because they believed that if their daughter was worthy, or their prayers fervent enough, she'd be healed by their magic sky fairy. They have murdered their daughter. I use that term, murder, intentionally. They have willfully denied their daughter medical care and because of that she is no more. This is especially tragic to me given that I'm an atheist. Without an afterlife to "live" for, or to transit to post-death, this result, death, is the worst outcome possible in my view. The parents failure to obtain proper medical care for a perfectly treatable condition is a travesty of both life and liberty.

The "State" is not necessary for many things. We are an over-regulated people in America. We have laws governing many of our behaviours. Of these laws, I believe most to be at best unnecessary, at worst intrusive. My conundrum lies in the straight fact that I'd like what these parents have done to be illegal. I WANT state intervention because I can't think of another way to handle such a case. This couple's daughter should be alive today. I'm not feeling my libertarian edge right at this moment and I'd like it back. Help?

(This post is part of the Blog Against Theocracy Blogswarm.)

OK, now that I have your attention . . .

. . . let's talk about sex. Or, more accurately, how religious nuts want to control your sex life, your access to information about sex, and your sexual health - all through the government.

Theocracy, anyone?

Specifically, I want to talk about how some in the health-related professions think that they should have the "right" to deny you services or information if something about your sex life disagrees with their religious beliefs.

First off, here's a nice bit from Illinois:

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A group of pharmacists asked the Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday to throw out a rule that forces them to dispense emergency contraception despite moral objections, claiming it amounts to illegal coercion.

OK, one more for John Shore, the folksy, friendly Christian apologist. He doesn't seem to be getting it.

John wrote a post on his blog called "Inquiring Atheists Want to Know: What, Exactly, Was the Sacrifice Jesus Made?. Atheists responded in the comment section. One in particular, "Instrumann", responded quite forcefully, with the correct argument; that is, that atheists are NOT "angry at God". Rather, we do not believe that God exists. So, how can we be angry at an imaginary magical being? What we are angry at is the fact that believers in this magical man in the sky influence the laws that are passed in our society, and sometimes insist that everyone kowtow to their own particular flavor of religious fairy tale.

[Instrumann] I don’t hate god. That’s a ridiculous statement. I don’t believe in any god so how could I hate one? I hate the fact that so many people invest so much of their time and energy believing fairytales and living their lives according to the rules of the fairytales.

I have to share my world with lunatics, simpletons, delusional people and people who are just too lazy to bother questioning what’s been force fed to them since they were kids. I do hate that fact.

John Shore, responding to Instrumann's comment, had this to say:

[John Shore] The harshness of your proclamation does compromise you being taken seriously. It’s too mean. Once you show people such bilious disrespect, you kind of forfeit your own right to be respected. Which is kind of a shame, because (as you know) there is much reasonableness to all you’ve said.

John, he was not showing anyone "bilious disrespect". He wasn't respecting your wacky religious beliefs, and he explained exactly why he does not respect them.

Listen very carefully, John. He is certainly disrespecting your magical thinking, but he is not disrespecting you.

I am the same way. I am kind to people, and I respect them as human beings. But my respect for them as people does not automatically spill over into respect for any strange, weirdo idea that happens to pop into their heads. For example, one of my dearest friends in the world is a believer is astrology. She is one of the few folks outside my own family that I would quite literally do anything for, up to and including giving my own life for hers if it came down to that. However, I will also tell her that I think she's being an idiot when she starts yacking-on about star signs and "readings".

Do I respect her? Absolutely. Do I respect her belief in astrology? Emphatically NO.

The problem is that religious beliefs in our society have traditionally been given a free pass - essentially having an unspoken immunity from criticism. So, when one of us dirty, nasty atheists says something critical about your beliefs, you seem to consistently misinterpret it as a personal attack.

It's just the way you were raised, John. Just the same way that you were raised to believe in magical sky men.

But we won't sit down and shut up any longer. Your fairy tale has too much influence on my life and on the lives of my family for me to keep quiet about it any more.

THAT is what all the comments are about. We are trying to stem what we see as a massively irrational and dangerous tide coming in that threatens us and our families personally. We are doing it by disagreeing with your ideas.

And you know what? Except for a few isolated lobbying groups, we are mostly doing it with words. Blogs, comments, books, and articles. There are no "militant" atheist groups - unless you stretch the meaning of the word "militant" completely out of shape until it ceases to have any real meaning at all.

Respect, in some situations, is given freely - like the respect that I give to every human being by the simple virtue of them being human.

Ideas have to earn my respect. Yours have not.

Most of the time I have nothing but nice things to say about Ellen Johnson. She's an intelligent, brave, proud spokesperson for atheists. I probably agree with her 98% of the time. But, I don't know what the hell she is thinking in this instance.

I couldn't disagree more. Not voting is the best way to make politicians continue to ignore us. I am frustrated by the same things Ellen is. However, it makes no sense at all to forfeit my vote, as a protest. That's the worst idea I've heard in a while. Write in Richard Dawkins' name or something, but don't sit home.

DENVER - Carrying a family Bible, a state representative-elect (Douglas Bruce) kicked a photographer who took a picture of him during a statehouse prayer — then was sworn into office.

***

When Rocky Mountain News photographer Javier Manzano took his photo during the traditional morning prayer, Bruce, who was standing, brought the sole of his shoe down hard on the photographer's bent knee.

Don't do that again," Bruce told him.

Later, Bruce refused to apologize.

"I think that's the most offensive thing I've seen a photographer do in 21 years," he said. "If people are going to cause a disruption during a public prayer, they should be called for it. He owes an apology to the House and the public."

Oy. Hey, Representative Bruce, you know that there is more than one part to the US Constitution's First Amendment, right? Just in case you've happened to forget, here's the full text:

Amendment I

Dawn Sherman, the 14 year old student in Buffalo Grove High School in Illinois who is fighting a mandatory moment of silence law, is getting hammered by the incredibly intolerant, misinformed, "persecuted" Christians who are willing to throw away their civil rights because they happen to be in the majority at this moment.

Stop by the comment area over there and show Dawn some support.

Yes it's true. Is anyone really that surprised? Why is it that the most famous people to endorse Ron Paul are Vox Day (of WorldNutDaily) and Tucker Carlson? Oh, I almost forgot about the John Birch Society.

In his latest rant Vox claims that PZ Myers "doesn't even try to make sense" (about Paul):

PZ needs to travel more. Living as he does in rural Minnesota, he has absolutely no idea how migration - not immigration - is completely destroying civilized cultures everywhere from Scandinavia to San Antonio.

Let me be clear. I don't think our current border control policies amount to anything more than lip service, but Vox is suffering from a severe bout of xenophobia. Completely destroying civilized cultures? Yes, illegal immigration should be an issue to be concerned about but let's try to keep the hysteria under control. More ranting about PZ:

Romney's exclusion of secular and atheist Americans from his rose-colored vision of a happily religious "Stepford wives" America was despicable, to say the least. Now the Huckabee camp in the person of Huckabee aide Ed Rollins gets in on a little atheist-bashing action by using the term as an epithet against Romney aide Ron Kaufman on the Chris Matthews show Hardball. And they all have a laugh at how ridiculous it was to call Kaufman an atheist.

Hah hah hah! Chuckle chuckle, elbow in the ribs. Isn't it so silly to say that a top aide to one of the Presidential campaign's front-runner candidates is a dirty, stinking, filthy godless atheist? Why, what could be more far-fetched? Everyone knows that atheists can't be in powerful political positions!

Silly Ed Rollins - what a merry jokester you are!

Oh wait - I mean bigoted asshole. Yeah, that's what I meant.

Mitt Romney appeared on Meet The Press with Tim Russert, and immediately Russert hammered him with the atheist/atheism question. Romney stumbled a bit, but managed not to wedge his foot too firmly in his mouth, I thought.

But what in the heck is this "common bond of humanity" he says that he shares with atheists? Is the Mittster a Humanist now? He's trying too hard. He seems to be trying to be all things to all people, and that's just a recipe for disaster.

Transcript below the fold...

A quick note: there's an interesting discussion with Rev. Forrest Church, author of So Help Me God: The Founding Fathers and the First Great Battle over Church and State over at dKos, and there will also be a radio interview with him at 10:00 EST tonight, streamed at News/Talk 710-KIRO.

Jim Downey

Raymond Grezel, pastor of the Rockville Church of the Nazarene near Vernon, Connecticut, the town where the Connecticut Valley Atheists erected their "Imagine No Religion" display, is a little confused about what the First Amendment is. According to him, it was apparently written specifically to protect the wilting-flower Christians in his church from being offended by all those nasty, unpopular opinions that they don't like.

[link] ...he didn't have a problem with the all-inclusive policy allowing the sign, but had hoped it would have been more appropriate.

"If you're going to allow everyone to have free speech or a display, then they should have to show a compelling reason ... without allowing inflammatory comments that ultimately harm others," Grezel said.

Hmnn. Interesting. He says, "If you're going to allow..." as if freedom of speech and expression is something that is voted on by the town council or something. As if it was not a right - the first and foremost right - already guaranteed to every American citizen by the First Amendment to the Constitution. So, Pastor Grezel thinks that us dirty atheists should have to show "a compelling reason" to exercise our civil right of freedom of expression as enumerated in the First Amendment, that our speech should be "appropriate", not "inflammatory", or "harm others".

Well, golly gee, Pastor. I had no idea that the First Amendment had all those very specific requirements that you just pulled out of your ass.

U. S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan seems to disagree with the good Pastor:

If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. - Texas vs. Johnson, 1989

In regards to Pastor Ray's delicate sensibilities and indignant squealing about the massive injustice of a group of atheists having the unmitigated gall to demand that they be afforded actual civil rights like the freedom of expression and speech, just like us regular decent people, I have to agree with General Colin Powell:

Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection.

In other words, get used to it. It's called being an American. You still want to be one of those, don't you?

Florida State Board Of Education member Donna Callaway gets it so wrong that it's painful to read.

[link] Donna Callaway, a former middle school principal from Tallahassee, told the Florida Baptist Witness that evolution "should not be taught to the exclusion of other theories of origins of life."

She also said she hoped Christians would pray over the issue. "As a SBOE member, I want those prayers," Callaway said. "I want God to be part of this."

Evolution is not a "theory of origins of life", number one, and number two, the Christian God cannot, by law, "be a part of" the Florida State Board Of Education - unless you rescind the United States Constitution, or secede from the union.

But you've all heard this before, time and time again. It's been said, over and over, a thousand times or more. The facts are always the same; ignorant Christian creationist who does not understand what evolution is, or what science is gets elected to the school board. Then they convince other ignorant Christian creationists on the school board to "teach the (nonexistent) controversy" by reading the religious tracts put out by the Discovery Institute, WoTM, or Dr. Dino. Overworked civil-rights defenders like the ACLU and FFRF take the school board to court and win. Many indignant news stories and op-ed columns are written about the evil atheist plot to persecute innocent Christians by teaching science instead of Christian mythology in - ahem - science classes. Overwrought email chain letters get forwarded to everyone and their grandmother shouting about the nasty atheists and their evil plan to barbecue all the Christian children in the public school system for the crime of being Christian.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Things like this make me tired. It feels like we're bailing out a leaky boat with plastic beer cups. I mean, were doing something, going through the motions, making a lot of noise and fuss, but the reality of the situation is that the boat is filling up too fast. I fear that we are sinking, and that there is not a lot we can do to prevent it.

Still, we'll keep on bailing because what else can we do?

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

Do you recognize the quote? Is it from some crazy militant atheist, some ACLU lawyer who hates this country's "Christian heritage"? Here's a bit more:

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

* * *

Man, you can't make this shit up:

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that "jihadism" is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, "…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration."

Romney, whose Mormon faith has become the subject of heated debate in Republican caucuses, wants America to be blind to his religious beliefs and judge him on merit instead. Yet he seems to accept excluding Muslims because of their religion, claiming they're too much of a minority for a post in high-level policymaking.