Miscellanea Agnostica

The Washington Post reports that the widely-derided-by-religionazis Michael Newdow — backed by groups such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation — is suing in federal court to keep two pastors off the podium when Barack Obama is sworn into office as president, and to keep him from having to say “so help me God” at the end of his oath:

A group of atheists, led by a California man known for challenging “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, plan to file a lawsuit today to bar prayer at the swearing-in of President-elect Barack Obama.

Michael A. Newdow, 17 other individuals and 10 groups representing atheists sued Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., several officials in charge of inaugural festivities and Rev. Joseph E. Lowery and pastor Rick Warren.

Somehow, America’s religious folk are not clear on this, and need to be reminded (as I blogged earlier): They aren’t going to see a bishop crown a king in a medieval rite, they’re going to see a US president sworn into office. In case anyone sees no problem with that practice, keep in mind that the author of the First Amendment, James Madison, said that the hiring of Congressional chaplains violated that Amendment (all spellings original):

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes.

So … if the man who wrote the First Amendment didn’t think Congressional sessions should be opened by chaplains, what the hell business does a president have being sworn in under the watchful eye of clergy?

Any questions from the so-called “strict constructionists” out there (who are almost universally all of the Religious Right persuasion), who always seem to foam at the mouth over what they claim is “the Founders’ intent”? You now know what the Founders’ intent was — from the pen of that very Founder who wrote the First Amendment! Read it, learn it, understand it.

P.S. Did I mention that “so help me God” is also not part of the Constitutional oath that presidents swear to? Oh, that’s right … it’s OK to add stuff into the Constitution so long as it’s God you’re adding in. There’s a word for that, you know … hypocrisy!)

Barack Obama’s inauguration, about a month from now, will feature an invocation by evangelical Christian Bible-thumper Rick Warren — pastor of the famed Saddleback megachurch and millionaire author of those cloying “purpose-driven” books — about whom I’ve blogged before. Warren is supposed to be a member of the “new” evangelicals … interested in social-justice causes and all of that, theoretically closer to the political Left than more traditional evangelicals. But let’s be honest about this; when it comes to the “big-ticket” issues so near and dear to the hearts of Protestant evangelicals — abortion, gays, etc. — Warren is a slave to the traditional dogma. Any difference he has with other evangelicals is strictly cosmetic.

Having an evangelical like Warren has, therefore, outraged Obama’s supporters on the Left, as one would logically expect:

No backing down whatsoever today from President-elect Barack Obama in the face of some strong criticism from gay and lesbian interests over his choice of Saddleback’s Rick Warren for the invocation speaker at the Jan. 20 inauguration.

As pastor of his mega-church in Lake Forest, Warren was an outspoken proponent of Prop. 8, which passed on Nov. 4 and overturns a court decision allowing same-sex marriage in California.

I wonder when the Left is finally going to figure out that Obama is not really their guy as much as they believe … they nominated and elected him primarily because he had not voted to approve the Iraq War (not possible for him, since he wasn’t in Congress then) … but this did not really make him “their” man, and he’s showing his true colors.

But the question that most nags at me is a bigger one: Why in hell is it even necessary to have a preacher presiding over the inauguration in the first place? Back in the Middle Ages, monarchs were crowned by popes or other bishops, in ecclesiastical rites that in some cases took all day. But I’ve got news for America — our president is not a king; his office is not a sacred one; he is, rather, the chief executive of a completely-secular government. It is not necessary for him to be inaugurated under the watch of the clergy.

Really, it’s not.

So … why the hell is Obama doing it? Could it be because too many Americans are not yet mature enough to let their new president take office without having God paraded around at the same time? Isn’t it time for Americans to grow up?

It’s unfortunate that Obama has chosen to do this; he could have displayed a great deal of courage by refusing to make his inauguration into a medieval sacerdotal rite. But I guess he just was not up to it. Pity.

The latest “God” story out of Kentucky — home of the infamous Creation Museum — is a bit odd because it’s not exactly “news.” It is, rather, a “discovery” of something that was actually done back in 2006:

Today’s Lexington Herald-Leader reports on a little-noticed provision in Kentucky’s law enacted in 2006 to create the state Office of Homeland Security. KY Code 39G.010 requires that the agency’s executive director is to “publicize the findings of the General Assembly stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth by including [specified findings] … in its agency training and educational materials.”

Yes folks, that’s right — God is “vital” to Kentucky’s security, and now everyone knows this is true, because it was a “finding” of the Commonwealth’s legislature. You know, of course, that the legislature governing the home of the Creation Museum could not possibly be wrong on that score, don’t you?

// End sarcasm mode //

I find it a bit odd that this has only just been uncovered. There’s more to this story, methinks, than meets the eye.

At any rate, it’s clear that the religionazis of this country will leave no stone unturned — and no ceremonial language out of legal statutes — in their effort to proselytize. I can’t help but wonder why it is that they’re so insecure in their beliefs, that they need to see the importance of God cited in a law and on a plaque? Are they really that immature and weak-minded?

… No, don’t answer that, I already know what it is …

The new Visitors’ Center in the US Capitol just opened. Normally such occasions are when Congressmen congratulate each other over the completion of yet another massive boondoggle project and make long speeches about how great they are the country is. But Jim DeMint, Theocrat GOP Senator from Bibleland South Carolina, chose this grand occasion instead to whine and pout like a brat:

Delete Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) from the list of admirers of the new Capitol Visitor Center.

DeMint issued a statement Tuesday criticizing the new facility for “omitting the history of faith.” DeMint noted that the new tourist spot ignored his request to include the phrase “In God We Trust” and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Waah waah waah. Grow the hell up, Senator, and stop using your office to proselytize. Didn’t anyone tell you that it’s undignified for a US Senator to whine?

What DeMint and other theocrats do not understand — or else they understand, but choose to deny — is that the oft-said crap about the United States being “a Christian nation” is simply not true. And no amount of motto-izing or bellyaching over the Pledge of Allegiance can change that. The historical record is clear; continued denial by the forces of the Religious Right only make them look more juvenile than they already do.

Enough already.

The relentless censorship of anything that can be taken to be irreligious continues, this time in southern California:

Complaints have led to removal of an atheist group’s “Imagine No Religion” billboard in Rancho Cucamonga.

The General Outdoor sign company took down the Freedom From Religion Foundation billboard on Thursday after the city asked if there was a way to get it removed. Redevelopment director Linda Daniels says they got 90 complaints.

My first thought on reading this was, “Why was it the redevelopment director who asked for it to be taken down?” If the city as an entity wanted it down, a mayor or other executive would have made the call. A redevelopment director … ? It makes little sense, unless the “90 calls” came from businesses who feared the billboard somehow made the city look bad.

At any rate, this situation makes me ask yet another question … “Why are religionists so afraid of any public message which is somehow irreligious?” What, exactly, are they afraid of? How, exactly, are they harmed by the presence of the FFRF billboard? Why are religious folk so immature and insecure in their beliefs that they cannot tolerate anything that questions it? I dare anyone to show me what possible harm could come from this billboard.

America’s liberals may view president-elect Barack Obama as “the Second Coming,” but recent news reports complain that he hasn’t been to church much since he was elected:

President-elect Barack Obama has yet to attend church services since winning the White House earlier this month, a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors.

On the three Sundays since his election, Obama has instead used his free time to get in workouts at a Chicago gym.

Asked about the president-elect’s decision to not attend church, a transition aide noted that the Obamas valued their faith experience in Chicago but were concerned about the impact their large retinue may have on other parishioners.

In response, this Politico story goes on to point out that past presidents-elect have not felt this way:

Both President-elect George W. Bush and President-elect Bill Clinton managed to attend church in the weeks after they were elected.

In November of 1992, Clinton went to services in Little Rock, Ark., on the three weekends following his election, taking pre-church jogs on the first two and attending on the third weekend a Catholic Mass with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, with whom he was trying to smooth over lingering campaign tensions.

In the weeks after the contested 2000 election, Bush regularly attended services at Tarrytown United Methodist Church in Austin, Texas, and Al Gore was frequently photographed arriving at and leaving church in Virginia.

Politico implies that the idea that hosting a president-elect and his family wasn’t a problem for those churches. Maybe it wasn’t, but that hardly matters. I find it difficult, if not impossible, to feel outraged that Obama hasn’t been to church enough since his election; there are other things I’m much more interested in, than that.

I blogged about a Kathleen Parker column in August in which she decried pastor Rick Warren (master of the trite and insipid “purpose-driven” religiosity franchise) setting himself up as the Lord’s anointed arbiter of the 2008 election. Once again, Parker hits the nail on the head and spells out in explicit terms the real problem the GOP faces:

As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.

Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D. …

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn’t soon cometh.

Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party.

Parker’s message is extremely unwelcome among the religionazis of the Religious Right — go ahead and see for yourself by scrolling down the page I linked to and seeing the comments of TownHall’s legions of hyperreligious fanatics … you will quickly see no small amount of palpable hatred.

It makes me wonder how all of these people could possibly be expressing so much venom and bile in the name of a tradition that likes to call itself “the Religion of Love.” But hey, what does this godless heathen know … ?

I’m not sure when things changed. But for at least a couple of decades after II Vatican, the Roman Catholic Church had been less politically-involved. And this policy was world-wide. Priests, for example, were forbidden to hold political offices. Of course, in the US, the Catholic Church is under IRS regulations that forbid it to be politically-active, which adds another layer of suppression to its political meddling.

But things have changed recently. In the last few years American Catholic bishops and activist groups (such as the Catholic League) have been taking orders from the Religious Right; it’s been meddling in politics increasingly.

Here in Connecticut the state’s bishops actively lobbied in favor of question 1 on the state’s 2008 ballot (concerning a constitutional convention). I really am not sure of the legality of this. I suppose they had lawyers review and approve it, but let’s be honest, they purposely skated the edge of the law in order to do so. How ethical is that … especially in an organization that claims to be an arbiter of morals and ethics?

Now comes word that a South Carolina priest has declared Obama voters ineligible for communion unless they first do penance for their “sin”:

A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him “constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil.” …

“Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.”

Claiming that voting for a pro-choice candidate is “evil” and contrary to Catholic doctrine, is effectively the same thing as endorsing that candidate’s rival — something which is forbidden by federal law (unless the priest wants to forfeit his parish’s non-profit status, which is fine by me but probably not his superiors or parishioners).

The alliance between the Catholic Church and the Religious Right — which is overwhelmingly Protestant evangelical and therefore anti-Catholic — is disturbing. I don’t see how or why America’s bishops and other Catholic activists think it’s a good idea to ally with one’s doctrinal foes, but they do. Unfortunately by marching in lock-step with these folk, they’re granting political influence to dominionism, a movement which — if successful — would have no reservations about outlawing Catholicism. Not all of the Religious Right are dominionists, that’s true … but the dominionist faction within that movement is very influential as well as politically-connected, and any power which accrues generally to the R.R. enhances the dominionsts’ influence as well.

In short, the Catholic Church in the US could very well be engineering its own destruction.

The North Carolina Senate race reached perhaps the height of absurdity this week when incumbent Republican Elizabeth Dole claimed that her opponent, Kay Hagan, is an atheist supported by an atheist PAC. Liddy Dole’s ad includes snippets from the Bill O’Reilly TV show in which atheists deny Jesus lived and even state that they want to remove “In God We Trust” from the nation’s currency.

As an added touch, the Dole ad ends with a soundalike audio piece of Hagan saying “There is no God!” Have a look at this piece of tripe:

The problem here is fourfold, the first two points being the simplest and most obvious: First, Hagan is not an atheist. She’s a lifelong Christian (a Presbyterian if I recall correctly) who even taught Sunday school. Second, she never actually uttered the words “There is no God!” — that was a soundalike recording.

The third point is that nothing any atheist said on the O’Reilly show has the slightest thing to do with Kay Hagan. There are PACs all over the place who raise money, then give it to candidates. That a person or group gives money to one, does not mean that the candidate agrees with them.

Fourth — and this is the point which is the most fundamental consideration here, but which is glossed over here — is that, even if Hagan is an atheist, so the hell what? Atheists are people too and can be Senators! (For those who disagree, may I direct your attention to Article VI of the US Constitution, which contains what is known as the No-religious-test clause. Thank you.)

One last remark about what the atheists on the O’Reilly show said … in fact, Jesus’ existence is not known with any certainty, and I can’t see that it ever will be.

Elizabeth Dole ought to be ashamed of herself … going so far as to record a soundalike of her opponent saying something she never said. And she dares call herself a good Christian woman … !

I suggest that people donate to Ms Hagan’s campaign as a way to protest what Liddy Dole has done.

In case you haven’t noticed, there’s a lot of dissent among conservatives in the US. Blogs and journalists have started covering this, as did the New York Times recently:

In recent weeks some prominent conservative intellectuals seem to have discovered they have two hands after all. In column after column, these writers have alternately praised the virtues of John McCain and Sarah Palin and lamented their shortcomings. …

The Times’s Op-Ed columnist David Brooks, who recently described Governor Palin as a “cancer on the Republican Party,” explained in an interview that the movement is now embroiled in a debate: “Should it go back to the core principles of Ronald Reagan or should it go on to something else? That’s the core issue.”

One would think this growing disaffection within conservatism is something new, but it’s not. It has, rather, been building over the last couple of years.

The conservative discontent manifested mostly in the form of dissatisfaction with the GOP presidential candidates, none of whom were able to appeal broadly to conservatives or Republicans. Some of them had some advantages (Mitt Romney was a successful businessman, Mike Huckabee a loveable Baptist minister, etc.), but they also had drawbacks (Huckabee is too much of a populist, Romney is a Mormon) … and that left John McCain to pick up the pieces, even though he had some liabilities of his own (e.g. his campaign-finance bill passed in 2002 — which made him the friend of the mass media, but made him many enemies from his erstwhile allies on the right).

Excuse me, but I can tell anyone who cares exactly what’s wrong with conservatism in the US in general, and the Republican party specifically. You might guess what I’d say based on the content of the rest of this blog, but I’ll just come out with it anyway: The problem is religion. Specifically the hyperreligion of the overwhelmingly Protestant evangelical Christians. Since they seized control of the GOP in the ’90s, they’ve become an increasingly demanding and volatile element of the party. The religious wing of conservatism were “stay-at-homes” during the 1992 and 1996 elections, due to their displeasure with the GOP candidates (Bush Senior and Bob Dole respectively). Neither was sufficiently religious for their tastes — so they withdrew their support. Having learned this lesson, and fueled by Religious Right™ gains in Congress in the 1994 midterms, in 2000 Bush Jr appealed heavily to the Religious Right™ and was rewarded by being elected.

Since 2000 the entire party has become a puppet of the US evangelicals, hewing strictly to religiosity at every step. They won in 2004 but lost big (much bigger than they would admit) in the 2006 midterms, and are on track to lose even more in 2008.

So long as Republicans keep obeying the hyperreligious will of evangelical Christians, they will continue to lose. They managed, through an understated campaign of anti-Mormon whispering, to undermine Romney, who at one time had almost sewn up the nomination. They then forced McCain to swing into religiosity, cozying up to televangelists and other religious opportunists, which contradicted his erstwhile “maverick” status, and caused the mass media to turn on him in spectacular fashion.

If the Republican party wishes to move into the 21st century, its leaders are going to have to break the chains that have enslaved them to the evangelicals. It really is just that simple.

David Brooks’s question of whether to go back to Reagan conservatism or move on to something else, implies that the Reagan route is most attractive … but it would be a mistake. It was Reagan who opened the door to religiosity in the GOP; while his appeal was not solely religious — he was also popular among “free market” conservatives who were decidedly secular — his alliances with guys like Falwell gave evangelicals a foot in the door, that they were able to exploit later. No, a more definite and explicitly non-religious tactic is called for, if the GOP wishes to succeed after 2008.