I guess Jesus just needed a better lawyer...

Link to article

Openly Secular

Richard Dawkins and Robyn Blumer, from Time.com:

It took the threat of a lawsuit before the Air Force agreed on Wednesday to allow airmen to omit the phrase “So help me God” as part of a required oath. Until then, they claimed an airman stationed at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada was ineligible to reenlist after he crossed out the phrase on his reenlistment form.

This controversy will rile up many people of good will—not against the military, but against the airman. Why make a big deal out of words that the majority of Americans believe in? Just cross your fingers if you must, and say the words. Why rock the boat?

Here’s why: The incident betrays a subtext of intolerance and hostility toward secular people that is embedded in American culture and public institutions. The Air Force was ready to end a man’s military career because he would not submit to its religious demands.

To secular Americans, requiring an oath to God is like asking a Jewish airman to swear, “So help me Jesus” or a Christian to say, “So help me Allah.”

The objection to forcing the oath on nonbelievers should be obvious. It’s not.

And slapping "In God We Trust" on the County Council wall?  Yea, I object to that too.

And now some numbers:

Secular Americans make up a huge and growing stratum of society. Atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers and the nonreligious make up 20 percent of Americans overall and fully a third of Millennials under 30 years old. But until secular people come forward and introduce themselves, the misconceptions marginalizing them will persist.

The polls are pretty startling. A Pew poll this year found that nearly half of Americans say it’s necessary to believe in God to be a moral person. Another recent poll found Americans would rather vote for an adulterous or pot-smoking candidate for President than one who is an atheist.

Yea, cause we're Godless and all that.

And so:

But a new campaign is hoping to change all that. Openly Secular launching today, is a new coalition of more than two dozen secular groups—one of the largest of its kind—coming together with the goal of raising awareness of the numbers of nonreligious people in the country. We include not only atheists and agnostics, but our allied organizations include religious people of many denominations who cherish the Founding Fathers’ ideal of church-state separation.

Hello, I'm David. I'm an agnostic and I am openly secular.

Last chance to voice your opinion before County Council votes today!

Allegheny County Council will vote today at their 5:00 pm meeting on a resolution--Bill 8376-14--proposed by Councilwoman Sue Means (R-Bethel Park), to post a plaque displaying the words “In God We Trust” in the Allegheny County Courthouse Gold Room. 

If like the Post-Gazette editorial board you believe that doing so will "invite discord," or like Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald you believe that doing so is "disrespecting other religions and beliefs by promoting one above the others," or like blogger Sue Kerr you believe that you "cannot trust the people who profess to believe in God," or like the OPJ you want to know "who is the 'we' here," or like this Facebook group (and bill critic Audrey Glickman) you believe that the stated purpose of the plaque in honoring "historic" and "patriotic" sentiments is pure BALONEY, then you have a little less than 12 hours to make your beliefs known to County Council.

You can email Council at council@alleghenycounty.us

It would also be very helpful to contact your own representative (and the two at-large members) as a constituent:

John DeFazio, County Council At-Large, President

412-350-6516, jdefazio@alleghenycounty.us 

Heather S. Heidelbaugh, County Council At-Large

412-350-6520, hheidelbaugh@alleghenycounty.us 

Thomas Baker, District 1

412-350-6525, thomas.baker@alleghenycounty.us

Jan Rea, District 2

412-350-6530, jrea@alleghenycounty.us

Edward Kress, District 3

412-350-6535, edward.kress@alleghenycounty.us

Michael J. Finnerty, District 4

412-350-6540, mfinnerty@alleghenycounty.us

Sue Means, District 5

412-350-6545, sue.means@alleghenycounty.us

John F. Palmiere, District 6

412-350-6550, jpalmiere@alleghenycounty.us

Nicholas Futules, District 7, Vice-President

412-350-6555, nfutules@alleghenycounty.us

Dr. Charles Martoni, District 8

412-350-6560, cmartoni@alleghenycounty.us

Robert J. Macey, District 9

412-350-6565, rmacey@alleghenycounty.us

William Russell Robinson, District 10

412-350-6570, wrobinson@alleghenycounty.us

Barbara Daly Danko, District 11  (You can thank her for being opposed to this!)

412-350-6575, Barbara.Danko@alleghenycounty.us

James Ellenbogen, District 12

412-350-6580, jellenbogen@alleghenycounty.us

Amanda Green Hawkins, District 13

412-350-6585, agreen@alleghenycounty.us

Let's flood their in-boxes and voice-mail and let them know that we believe in the Separation of Church and State!

Yea, This Is One Reason We Separate Church And State

Look at what's surfaced in Oklahoma:

Voters in Oklahoma could be literally stuck in a rock and a hard place with Tea Party candidate Scott Esk.

Esk, who is running for a seat in the state’s House, reportedly discussed the stoning and killing of homosexuals in July 2013 Facebook conversations, which were discovered and posted by Oklahoma-based website The Moore Daily Tuesday.

The link gets us to this facebook conversation.  In it candidate Esk cites Romans 1:26-27, Romans 1:32, Leviticus 20:13 to justify the stoning and the killing, even though (and these are his words):

I think we would be totally in the right to do it. That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I'm largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.

He also says:

Men were commanded to put guilty parties to death who were guilty of certain acts, like homosexuality. Laws to put people to death who were guilty of such practices have been in existence in various countries in Jesus' time and afterwards, too. If men wink at such perversions, God may have no choice than to judge such nations with calamities. [Emphasis added.]

And that would be "commanded by God" of course.  A direct command from the Creator hisself.  And then Esk explains his federalism:

If it helps any, I consider it a violation of federalism to deal with such things on a national level, and different states will have different laws on the matter. I would hope that libertarians who don't think perversion should be punished in any way between consenting adults would be open-minded and look at the different results between a state that ignores it, and 1 that punishes it severely. And within a state, cities and communities may well have different policies, and I cheer that. That way, people can decide for themselves whether they want to live in a particular community based in part on how things like this are dealt with.

So if a large enough section of our population (one that believes that The Bible is inerrant truth and that God's law should be THE law) votes for stoning teh gays, that's fine with Esk.

And if you don't like it you're free to simply move to someplace that tolerates the perversions that God detests.

Yea separating church and state suddenly sounds a bit more rational, don't it?

Just a reminder

I Wonder If Our Friends In Connellsville Know About This

For years a banner hung in the auditorium of a public High School in Cranston, Rhode Island.  It was the official school prayer until the Supreme Court banned state sponsored prayer in 1962.  Since then the banner remained affixed to the wall.  Here is the text:

Our Heavenly Father.

Grant us each day the desire to do our best. To grow mentally and morally as well as physically. To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers. To be honest with ourselves as well as with others. Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win. Teach us the value of true friendship. Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.

Amen.

You can see the banner here.  While the general ideas laid out in the "prayer" aren't that offensive (it is, let's remember simply a prayer "to do our best" and to "help us be good sports" and so on), what is offensive is that it's an official prayer to God hung in a public school.

After the ACLU and a local high schooler named Jessica Ahlquist filed a lawsuit objecting,  the judge in this case ordered it removed, writing:

The Supreme Court has traditionally drawn a clear line between government conduct which might be acceptable in some settings and the conduct which is prohibited in public schools. In Van Orden, where the Supreme Court held that a monument displaying the Ten Commandments was acceptable on the 44-acre grounds of the Texas State Capitol, the Court underscored this distinction:

This case, moreover, is distinguishable from instances where the Court has found Ten Commandments displays impermissible. The display is not on the grounds of a public school, where, given the impressionability of the young, government must exercise particular care in separating church and state.

And what happened to Jessica?

The good Christians of Cranston, Rhode Island objected:

She is 16, the daughter of a firefighter and a nurse, a self-proclaimed nerd who loves Harry Potter and Facebook. But Jessica Ahlquist is also an outspoken atheist who has incensed this heavily Roman Catholic city with a successful lawsuit to get a prayer removed from the wall of her high school auditorium, where it has hung for 49 years.

A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion. In the weeks since, residents have crowded school board meetings to demand an appeal, Jessica has received online threats and the police have escorted her at school, and Cranston, a dense city of 80,000 just south of Providence, has throbbed with raw emotion.

State Representative Peter G. Palumbo, a Democrat from Cranston, called Jessica “an evil little thing” on a popular talk radio show. Three separate florists refused to deliver her roses sent from a national atheist group. The group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.

Not exactly a WWJD moment for them, I'm afraid.

More recently, however, Jessica's received another award:

Since her successful challenge last year of a prayer banner at Cranston High School West, Jessica Ahlquist has been traveling the country speaking about First Amendment rights.

But not until now has she been invited to speak at the Playboy Mansion.

Ahlquist, 17, is scheduled to speak at the Playboy Mansion in Holmby Hills, CA on May 22nd where she will receive a Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award. The award in the Education category -- $5,000 cash and a commemorative plaque -- is for Ahlquist's "courageous and successful lawsuit" in the Cranston prayer banner case, a publicist for the foundation said in a statement.

She won. This "evil little thing" won for religious freedom. For everyone.

I wonder if our friends in Connellsville and New Kensington know about this.

As Medieval As They Wanna Be

Rick Santorum was once called “one of the finest minds of the thirteenth century” in the pages of The Philadelphia Inquirer. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is somewhat less retro, preferring the 16th century (but probably having some beefs with the Renaissance):


Separated at birth?
That's the hat he wore to President Obama's second inauguration yesterday. According to WalshLaw:

The hat is a custom-made replica of the hat depicted in Holbein’s famous portrait of St. Thomas More. It was a gift from the St. Thomas More Society of Richmond, Virginia. We presented it to him in November 2010 as a memento of his participation in our 27th annual Red Mass and dinner.

I'm sure Scalia likes to see himself as a defender of the faith too (even when acting less than saintly) and, no doubt sees no conflict in that. I'm also guessing that More would have had no problem with Scalia's views on women (or little else).

Call it a human sacrifice

Savita Halappanavar

"Human sacrifice is the act of killing one or more human beings as part of a religious ritual (ritual killing). Its typology closely parallels the various practices of ritual slaughter of animals and of religious sacrifice in general. Human sacrifice has been practised in various cultures throughout history. Victims were typically ritually killed in a manner that was supposed to please or appease gods, spirits or the deceased, for example as a propitiatory offering, or as a retainer sacrifice when the King's servants are killed in order for them to continue to serve their master in the next life. "

- Wikipedia

Savita Halappanavar's life was sacrificed to comply with Catholic religious doctrine which demands that termination of a pregnancy never be permitted -- including to save the life of the woman. Via The Irish Times:

Savita Halappanavar (31), a dentist, presented with back pain at the hospital on October 21st, was found to be miscarrying, and died of septicaemia a week later.

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

Savita was neither Catholic or Irish. Think it can't happen here? Think again. This same view was espoused by the Republican Party Platform which offered no exceptions for abortions. Now, Ohio wants to put it into practice. Via Think Progress:

During this year’s lame duck session, Ohio legislators are planning to revive HB 125, a so-called “heartbeat” bill that would ban abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected — which can first occur as early as five or six weeks, before many women may even know they’re pregnant. The proposed legislation represents the most restrictive abortion ban in the United States. If HB 125 is passed, it would criminalize all abortions after the emergence of a fetal heartbeat without allowing even the narrowest exceptions in potential cases of rape, incest, or the mental health of the woman.

Even if Ohio’s bill includes some kind of provision that would allow women to seek abortions in life-threatening situations, Halappanavar’s death points to the fact that health risks aren’t always immediately apparent. A 1992 Supreme Court ruling in Ireland amended the country’s abortion ban to include an exception in cases where the woman’s life is in danger, but Irish hospitals don’t always know how far that medical exception can stretch. They are often reluctant to provide women with abortion services unless the situation is very clearly life-threatening — and for women like Halappanavar, that can already be too late.

And in cases where the fetus is not expected to survive — when women like Halappanavar are undergoing a miscarriage, or when doctors discover fatal fetal defects — anti-abortion legislation is often murky, even in this country. In Arizona, where a stringent abortion ban outlaws the procedure after just 20 weeks, women who discover fatal defects that will not allow their fetus to survive are forced to carry the fetus to term anyway.

In other words, a doctor would have to wait until a woman is literally dying before intervening. Has she lost enough blood? Is the infection so pervasive that she may not recover? Because . . . because . . . of a religious concept of a soul which presents itself at conception but is stained by sin because a woman talked to an evil serpent? Because . . . because . . . How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

This is what happens when religion is allowed to be the state. An intelligent, beautiful, young woman's life is sacrificed for the fetus who is already dying inside her.

Both are dead.

"With modern technology and science, you can't find one instance," Walsh said. "There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing."

- Republican Rep. Joe Walsh (Ill.)

Ruth Ann Stumbles, I Think

Today, Ruth Ann Dailey references one of my favorite philosphers:

Even Bertrand Russell -- an early exemplar of "antagonistic atheism" -- acknowledged in "A History of Western Philosophy" that the Enlightenment was essentially the culmination of Martin Luther's schism with the Roman Catholic Church -- the Reformation.

The column, titled:

America a Christian nation? Think again

Takes a very fair and practical look at the idea that America is a "Christian Nation."

Her answer, by the way, is "Yes and no."  I'd agree with her answer but not with how she forms the question.

But let's look at the stumble.

Yea, This Needs To Be Moved.

(H/t to our friends at Steel City Skeptics):

(Full sized image can be seen here.)
This monument stands at the main entrance of a local public high school.  It needs to be moved.

Nice To See We Agree On Something!

And by "we" I mean me and Scaife's braintrust.

As I've written before, they're surprisingly critical of our Rick.  Ostensibly it has to do with Rick's then support of Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004 - and they're not alone in their conservative disdain of Rick.  But given the vitriol on their part, I suspect it's something deeper.  But it's just an evidence free gut feeling, if you will.

Which brings me back to today's criticism of Rick by Scaife's braintrust.  When they get something right, they should be congratulated.  CONGRATULATIONS TO SCAIFE'S BRAINTRUST!  THEY GOT ONE RIGHT.

Let's go take a look at the editorial:

More On Rick Saccone, R-Elizabeth

An astute reader drew my attention this morning to some recently introduced business of super-duper-uber imporance to the Commonwealth, a Resolution declaring 2012 as the "Year of the Bible" in Pennsylvania.

This hypocritical and unconstitutional resolution is from the legislative desk of State Representative Rick Saccone (R-Elizabeth).  Who's a very interesting fellow, indeed.

How Different The GOP Is!

I wanted to follow-up on this post from a few days ago.

As you will no doubt recall, Ronald Reagan was on record as saying:

We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.

Owing to the date of that speech (October 24, 1984)  and to the fact that he takes a political swipe or two:

And there's something else. The ideals of our country leave no room whatsoever for intolerance, for anti-Semitism, or for bigotry of any kind—none. In Dallas, we acted on this conviction. We passed a resolution concerning anti-Semitism and disassociating the Republic[an] Party from all people and groups who practice bigotry in any form. But in San Francisco this year, the Democratic Party couldn't find the moral courage or leadership to pass a similar resolution. And, forgive me, but I think they owe you an explanation. [Applause] Thank you.

What has happened to them? Why, after the issue became so prominent during the primaries, did the Democratic leadership walk away from their convention without a resolution condemning this insidious cancer? Why didn't they turn their backs on special interests and stand shoulder to shoulder with us in support of tolerance and in unequivocal opposition to prejudice and bigotry?

We must never remain silent in the face of bigotry. We must condemn those who seek to divide us. In all quarters and at all times, we must teach tolerance and denounce racism, anti-Semitism, and all ethnic or religious bigotry wherever they exist as unacceptable evils. We have no place for haters in America—none, whatsoever.

We can assume this is speech is more of a campaign speech than a policy speech.  It was only a few weeks before the '84 elections.  For example, what did he mean by "In Dallas"?

That would be the GOP party platform from the Party Convention in Dallas:

The Republican Party reaffirms its support of the pluralism and freedom that have been part and parcel of this great country. In so doing, it repudiates and completely disassociates itself from people, organizations, publications, and entities which promulgate the practice of any form of bigotry, racism, anti-semitism, or religious intolerance.

It's interesting to ponder that, faced with an upcoming election, Reagan decided to campaign on the idea that the church and state are separate and that in matters of faith the government must remain neutral.

How does that stand up to the current GOP in the current election season?

Huh. Go Figure.

An interesting stream of words came to me this weekend via a facebook status update.  The text read:

We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.

It's that last part that fumes our friends, the social/religious conservatives.  It's not in the Constitution, they say.  It's not what the founders or the framers intended, they say.  Our greatness as a culture depends on our reliance on our shared Judeo/Christian heritage, they say.  Erasing it will only undermine that greatness, they say.

Only a traitorous lib'rul could say what I read on facebook.  The thing is my loyal facebook friend asserted that it was Ronald Reagan who spewed forth such malicious ideas.

More On Herman Cain's Religious Tolerance

GOP hopeful Herman Cain had some interesting things to say about Church State matters this weekend.

Take a look:


The part I like best is that he opens with:

Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state.

And then uses that to assert that a community has the right to ban a mosque's construction in that community.

It's a stunning piece of logic, to be sure.

As far as I can tell, it's based on the idea as Cain ably states, that Islam is both a set of laws and a religion. Since it's both and since the Constitution (and it's oh-so refreshing to hear a conservative - even a nutty one like Cain - say this) guarantees separation of Church and State, any "religion" that's looking to impose itself onto the law can be banned.

He's just wrong when he says that non-Islamic religions don't have a set of rules or are otherwise not looking to impose their rules onto the law.

So when Archbishop Dolan says that New York's Gay Marriage Bill is an "Ominous Threat" he's not looking to impose Catholic Church doctrine onto the people of the Empire State.

So when the Southern Baptist Convention, in 1984, called for its members to push for legislation that agreed with their position of abortion, it wasn't looking to impose its faith upon the law.

Freedom of Religion for me but not for thee. That's the GOP.

Hey, I rhymed. Thrice - or was that twice? Anyway, how nice.

Ruth Ann's Prayer

Let me start off by saying that I like Ruth Ann Dailey. She's a very nice person, very smart, good writer and when she writes about music she's almost always gets it right.

But when she writes about graduation prayers, as she did this week, she gets it wrong. She shaded her arguments just enough them to qualify as a "straw man" argument.

Here's what she did. Her opening paragraphs:

Here's how the annual American fight over public school prayer played out this year:

In late May an agnostic family in a suburb of San Antonio, Texas, sued to remove the invocation and benediction from Medina Valley High School's graduation ceremony. Their lawsuit, filed with the help of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, claimed the prayers would force their son to participate in religious activities.

Last Tuesday, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in their favor, saying that formal prayers would make it seem that the school was "sponsoring a religion."

On Wednesday the state attorney general asked a federal appeals court to overturn the decision.

On Thursday the school's valedictorian filed a lawsuit, with the help of the pro-faith and limited-government Liberty Institute, to reinstate and lead the ceremonial prayers.

On Friday the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in and reversed the lower court's ban on prayer.

Ooo. She was sooo close! But the lower court did not issue a "ban on prayer." And the higher court did not "reverse" it, either.

Here's the lower court's ruling. The issue here is not prayer but official prayer. The ruling took out the words "Benediction" and "Invocation" from the program. It also instructed the students chosen to give what would have been them to be "statements of their own beliefs" rather than instructing those assembled in prayer.

That agnostic family was challenging the idea that they'd be told to pray at that graduation. The students giving speeches were free (as they always are) "to state their own personal beliefs" during the ceremony. They could give the sign of the cross, for example. Or kneel to Mecca, if they wished.

They just couldn't tell the crowd to pray.

And the upper court's ruling didn't reverse the lower court as much as dissolve its temporary restraining order and and preliminary injunction remand it to district court for further proceedings.

The upper court noted that "Benediction" and "Invocation" were removed from the program.

Now compare that to the prayer that takes up the rest of her column. She introduces it with:

Since the issue is likely to flare up again next year and to feature immaturity all the way around, here's an all-purpose speech for the prayer-minded class leader. It can be easily adapted to suit whatever the last court ruling might be.

And ends it with:

Despite the acrimonious lawsuit that preceded today's event, if I were allowed to offer a prayer, I would echo Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address -- 'With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds ...'

"Or we could stop wounding one another and just grow up. That would be my prayer today, if I were allowed to pray.

But the students in Medina Texas were allowed to pray.

They just shouldn't be allowed to force anyone else to pray.

And that's where Ruth Ann gets it wrong.

More On Rick Santorum's Historiography

A few days ago the OPJ brought up the subject of ex-Senator Rick Santorum's lack of knowledge of history.

Her post linked back to Spork (hey, Spork! How's it going?) and Spork linked back to this piece at TPM:

Rick Santorum told about 50 members of the group Catholic Citizenship that he was "frankly appalled" that America's first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, once said "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

"That was a radical statement," Santorum said, and did "great damage."

TPM's piece itself linked back to this report in the Boston Globe:

It may seem an odd way to appeal to a crowd of Massachusetts voters: First, attack Mitt Romney, the last Republican to hold the governor's office. Then, go after President Kennedy, arguably the state's most revered Democrat.

But Rick Santorum, a former US Senator from Pennsylvania who is courting conservatives as he weighs a presidential run, came to Massachusetts and did just that today, blaming Kennedy for marginalizing religion in public life and Romney for signing the Massachusetts health care law.

It's the Kennedy/Religion part I want to focus on. The Globe continues:

"We're seeing how Catholic politicians, following the first Catholic president, have followed his lead, and have divorced faith not just from the public square, but from their own decision-making process," Santorum said.

"Jefferson is spinning in his grave," he added.

The crowd responded with nods and applause.

Santorum also criticized Catholic parishes for their "lukewarm faith" and urged the crowd not to donate to Catholic schools that stray from church teachings.

"You're feeding the beast," he said, sparking applause. "The heresy that goes in Catholic schools in America is amazing."

Lil Ricky is making the general point that more religion (in this case more Catholicism) is needed in the public square and in the "decision making process" of individual Catholic politicians. Unlike John Kennedy who said in his speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association:

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.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept 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.

Is that what Rick Santorum finds appalling? Seems to be. Or perhaps it was Kennedy's next two paragraphs:

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been -- and may someday be again -- a Jew, or a Quaker, or a Unitarian, or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end, where all men and all churches are treated as equals, where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice, where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind, and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and the pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

What radical statements! Oh the great great damage to the fabric of American society! That religious intolerance should end! That the people should be free to worship (or not worship) as they choose! That no "religious code" becomes commingled with law - for that will only lead to trouble.

Who said that last part?

Rick Santorum. On the dangers of Sharia law:

Rick Santorum on Friday asserted that Sharia law has no place in America.

And:

Santorum added, “Sharia law is not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature an origin, but it is a civil code. And it is incompatible with the civil code of the United States.”

So mixing religion and the state is evil - but only just sometimes.

It's only OK when the certain acceptable religions are being mixed in with The State. But who decides when that happens? Politicians like Rick Santorum.

If Jefferson is spinning in his grave, it's because self-righteous politicians like Rick Santorum want more religion, but only their religion, in the public sphere.

Some Notes On Today's Tribune-Review

It's fun, sometimes, to notice how skewed the reporting (or at least the choice of what to report - which is different and puts the bias-onus on the editors and not the reporters) can be over at Richard Mellon Scaife's Tribune-Review.

Most of the time it's subtle and within bounds.

Today, however, it is not.

An estimated 200,000 people showed up for Jon Stewart's "Restore Sanity and/or Fear" rally at the National Mall yesterday. The estimate comes from the same firm that estimated 87,000 attended Glenn Beck rally in late August. Whether the Beck numbers are too low is beside the point here. The point being that with the same company using the same methodology for the two different events, the Stewart rally racked up more than twice the people attending.

Having written that, I gotta ask what did the Trib go with this morning as the most prominent cover story online?

Of course - a local Tea Party event:

Brian Durbin of Hempfield got up Saturday morning and transformed himself into Benjamin Franklin.

He pulled on brown knickers, a tan vest and ruffled neckpiece, and then covered his hair with a white wig. After pushing wire-rimmed glasses onto his nose, he grabbed a cane, ready to party.

Durbin set off to a Tea Party event in Unity, where physician Bill Hennessey invited several hundred people to a pre-Election Day rally.

Several hundred. Impressive. And no mention (as far as I can tell) of the tens of thousands attending the Stewart/Colbert Rally.

See? Not to subtle today.

Then there's this from the editorial page:

Notes a New York Times headline: "Fraudulent voting re-emerges as a partisan issue." Since when is voter fraud a "partisan" issue? Since it's Republicans complaining about Democrat-orchestrated fraud, you can bet.

But if you were to actually read the Times piece, you'd see what the story is really about:

In 2006, conservative activists repeatedly claimed that the problem of people casting fraudulent votes was so widespread that it was corrupting the political process and possibly costing their candidates victories.

The accusations turned out to be largely false, but they led to a heated debate, with voting rights groups claiming that the accusations were crippling voter registration drives and reducing turnout.

That debate is flaring anew.

Tea Party members have started challenging voter registration applications and have announced plans to question individual voters at the polls whom they suspect of being ineligible.

In response, liberal groups and voting rights advocates are sounding an alarm, claiming that such strategies are scare tactics intended to suppress minority and poor voters. [emphasis added.]

"Democrat-orchestrated fraud"?

While many states have voter registration records riddled with names of dead people, out-of-date addresses and other erroneous information, there is little evidence that such errors lead to fraudulent votes, many experts note.

A report by the public-integrity section of the Justice Department found that from October 2002 to September 2005, the department charged 95 people with “election fraud”; 55 were convicted.

Among those, fewer than 20 people were convicted of casting fraudulent ballots, and only 5 were convicted of registration fraud. Most of the rest were charged with other voting violations, including a scheme meant to help Republicans by blocking the phone lines used by two voting groups that were arranging rides to get voters to the polls.

It's a "partisan issue" when the Republicans are using trumped up charges (myths, really) of "Democrat-orchestrated voter fraud" to suppress the voter registration of members of demographic groups they think will vote against them.

If they truly believed in democracy, they'd be bending over backwards to make sure everyone voted.

Which leads me to one shining moment at the Trib. Joe Mistik's column - stunning defense of the Separation of Church and State:

In truth, God is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. While the Founders all adhered to some form of Christianity or deism, their diverse religious beliefs instilled in them a fear that a theocracy could be established here. And contrary to the religious tests that some political movements impose on candidates, the Constitution says, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Some extreme candidates even wrap themselves in the flag and argue that the principle requiring the separation of church and state does not appear in the Constitution. But James Madison, "The Father of the Constitution," said, "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."

Striking the proper balance, the Constitution does say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

How long before Joe is branded un-American is anyone's guess.

Scenes From Teh Crazie Tea Party

First, from Delaware:

Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.

The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" [emphasis added.]

Take a look:


The fun stuff is way at the end - O'Donnell doesn't seem to understand what's in the First Amendment - it's found at about 7:10. She sounds like rather incredulous.

Oh, and at about 1:40 she lectures Coons about how much he doesn't know about the Constitution and about evolution - which she says is not a fact but "a theory."

Her campaign's trying to minimize how Constitutionally ignorant she sounded:

“In this morning’s WDEL debate, Christine O’Donnell was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts,” said campaign manager Matt Moran. “She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution.”

Sure she was. It's obvious that if you listen to what she said and the way she said it, she was obviously making the silly point that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not occur in the First Amendment.

Of course she was.

If you believe that, you'll believe that Evolution has been disproved because monkeys aren't changing before our eyes into hu-mans.

Fact-Checking Santorum

[Still blogging from a secret undisclosed location]

While working on a long-ish blog post about Ex-Senator Rick Santorum and his speech in Houston, I found the transcript of the speech.

I read the first coupla paragraphs and realized it's gonna need some serious fact-checking on its own. I haven't gotten any further than the opening, by the way.

Here's Lil Ricky:

Fifty years ago this Sunday JFK delivered a speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association to dispel suspicions about the role the papacy might play in the government of this country under his administration. Let's make no mistake about it -- Kennedy was addressing a real issue at the time. Prejudice against Catholics threatened to cost him the election.

But on that day, Kennedy chose not just to dispel fear, he chose to expel faith.

Let me quote from the beginning of Kennedy's speech:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.

The idea of strict or absolute separation of church and state is not and never was the American model. It was a model used in countries like France and until recently Turkey, but it found little support in America until it was introduced into the public discourse by Justice Hugo Black in the case of Everson v. The Board of Education in 1947. (Black, by the way, was a Catholic-hating former member of the KKK who ironically enough advocated this strict separation doctrine to keep public funds from Catholic schools.)

Justice Black, by the way, resigned from the Klan 20+ years before writing the majority opinion in Everson v The Board of Education. But let's grant Rick this one. Black had been a member of the Klan (boo! Klan bad!). There were 4 others on the Court who agreed with Black's opinion. Were they Klan members, too?

Uh, no.

And what of that ruling?

This is the funny part. Rick gets the ruling wrong. You'll see how in a minute.

Here's Black's description of the issue from his majority opinion:

A New Jersey statute authorizes its local school districts to make rules and contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools. The appellee, a township board of education, acting pursuant to this statute, authorized reimbursement to parents of money expended by them for the bus transportation of their children on regular busses operated by the public transportation system. Part of this money was for the payment of transportation of some children in the community to Catholic parochial schools. These church schools give their students, in addition to secular education, regular religious instruction conforming to the religious tenets and modes of worship of the Catholic Faith. The superintendent of these schools is a Catholic priest.

The appellant, in his capacity as a district taxpayer, filed suit in a state court challenging the right of the Board to reimburse parents of parochial school students. He contended that the statute and the resolution passed pursuant to it violated both the State and the Federal Constitutions. That court held that the legislature was without power to authorize such payment under the state constitution. 132 N.J.L. 98, 39 A.2d 75. The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals reversed, holding that neither the statute nor the resolution passed pursuant to it was in conflict with the State constitution or the provisions of the Federal Constitution in issue. 133 N.J.L. 350, 44 A.2d 333. The case is here on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 344(a).

So, what did this anti-Catholic former Klan member opine?

This is from the case syllabus:

Held:

1. The expenditure of tax raised funds thus authorized was for a public purpose, and did not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 5-8.
2. The statute and resolution did not violate the provision of the First Amendment (made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment) prohibiting any "law respecting an establishment of religion." Pp. 8-18. [p2]

Take a close look at that. That Jersey taxpayer lost the case. The Court held that the statute allowing the travel reimbursements for parents sending their kids to parochial (read: Catholic ) schools was Constitutional. So when Rick (a lawyer, by the way) says that Black "advocated this strict separation doctrine to keep public funds from Catholic schools" he has to know that he's, uh, not representing the truth adequately enough for us to say, "He's being honest."

That's dishonest spin #1.

Dishonest spin #2 comes when Rick writes that the phrase "separation of church and state":

...found little support in America until it was introduced into the public discourse by Justice Hugo Black in the case of Everson v. The Board of Education in 1947.

If that was correct then one would expect the dissenting opinions in this case to oppose this so-called "separation", right?

Uh, no. The dissents also recognize the "separation of church and state." From Robert H. Jackson's dissent:

[The State] may socialize utilities and economic enterprises and make taxpayers' business out of what conventionally had been private business. It may make public business of individual welfare, health, education, entertainment or security. But it cannot make public business of religious worship or instruction, or of attendance at religious institutions of any character. There is no answer to the proposition, more fully expounded by MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, that the effect of the religious freedom Amendment to our Constitution was to take every form of propagation of religion out of the realm of things which could directly or indirectly be made public business, and thereby be supported in whole or in part at taxpayers' expense. That is a difference which the Constitution sets up between religion and almost every other subject matter of legislation, a difference which goes to the very root of religious freedom and which the Court is overlooking today. This freedom was first in the Bill of Rights because it was first in the forefathers' minds; it was set forth in absolute terms, and its strength is its rigidity. It was intended not only to keep the states' hands out of religion, but to keep religion's hands off the state, and, above all, to keep bitter religious controversy out of public life by denying to every denomination any advantage from getting control of public policy or the public purse. Those great ends, I cannot but think, are immeasurably compromised by today's decision. [emphasis added.]

From Wiley Blount Rutledge's dissent:

Not simply an established church, but any law respecting an establishment of religion, is forbidden. The Amendment was broadly, but not loosely, phrased. It is the compact and exact summation of its author's views formed during his long struggle for religious freedom. In Madison's own words characterizing Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, the guaranty he put in our national charter, like the bill he piloted through the Virginia Assembly, was "a Model of technical precision, and perspicuous brevity." Madison could not have confused "church" and "religion," or "an established church" and "an establishment of religion."

The Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily, it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion. In proof, the Amendment's wording and history unite with this Court's consistent utterances whenever attention has been fixed directly upon the question. [emphasis added.]

So w-a-a-a-y back in 1947 all sides (majority and dissenting) of this case agreed that there was a separation of church and state.

And yet Rick, lawyer and former member of the United States Senate says there isn't and there never was.

And that's just the first coupla paragraphs. What will I find if I go onto the second page???

[Still at a secret undisclosed location.]