Miscellanea Agnostica

The Great Neocrusade proceeds relentlessly across the United States. Sanctimonious Religious Rightists are proposing laws in several states which outlaw what they call “shari’a law.” As one would expect, these bills are invariably based on erroneous assumptions about Islam and the nature of shari’a law, and based upon a prevailing fear that shari’a law is being imposed on the country by force.

First we have Tennessee state senators Bill Ketron and Judd Matheny, who want to abolish shari’a law there, as reported in the Washington Post On Faith blog (WebCite cached article):

Tennessee State Sen. Bill Ketron (R-Murfreesboro) and state Rep. Judd Matheny (R-Tullahoma) introduced a bill last week outlawing the practice of Sharia, a complex set of religious laws that guide behavior for Muslims.

The bill, embedded below, attempts to define Sharia law and to make following it a felony punishable by 15 years in jail.

The bill in question is SB1028, available here. Of note is that Murfreesboro is where some raging Neocrusaders set fire to a mosque under construction back in October. Ketron and Matheny’s problem is that they misdefine shari’a; they further claim that Islam itself is a combined legal-military-political ideology, and imply that it’s not a religion. This mirrors what TN lieutenant governor Ron Ramsey said last summer, that Islam is a political-legal system, not a religion, and therefore not entitled to First Amendment protection. Ketron and Matheny also don’t bother to explain where, in the US, any government at any level has ever been able to force anyone to knuckle under to shari’a — even though his bill is predicated on the idea that it’s happening.

Next, we have Arizona — which appears to have become the epicenter of militant Rightism in the US — where a proposed bill (HB 2582) would outlaw all forms of religious law, including shari’a (cached):

“Religious sectarian law” means any statute, tenet or body of law evolving within and binding a specific religious sect or tribe. Religious sectarian law includes sharia law, canon law, halacha and karma but does not include any law of the united states or the individual states based on Anglo?American legal tradition and principles on which the united states was founded.

The authors of this bill have essentially gone berserk on the entire notion of “religious law,” and don’t understand what they’re talking about. First, “religious law” systems like Halakha (within Judaism) and canon law (within several Christian denominations, including the Roman Catholic, Anglican and the several Orthodox churches) are — at least partly — the manner in which those religions conduct their own internal affairs, serving as a kind of administrative code. To abolish them completely would obviously run afoul of their religious freedoms. Second, karma is not a system of administration, but rather, a metaphysical principle within Hinduism and other Dharmic religions. It can’t be used in court, as far as I can see, despite the fact that it’s often referred to as a “law.” It’s no more a code of administration or justice than the so-called “Law” of Attraction.

Let me be clear: I do not favor the imposition of shari’a on anyone in the US. It’s a dangerous, metaphysically-charged, often-barbaric code which should be phased out worldwide — the sooner, the better. And I’m not in favor of the Roman Catholic Church holding its own canon law above the secular laws of the lands in which the Church operates; where criminal law and canon law collide, criminal law should prevail. However, passing laws to abolish shari’a law, or any other religious law-code, within the US is irrational, asinine, and childish. There is no way that any religious law-code can ever be imposed on Americans, due to the First Amendment, among other Constitutional protections. Bills such as these accomplish nothing useful, except to demonstrate the immaturity and ignorance of those who draft, sponsor, and support them. And the idea that karma is even a law-code that could ever be used in any kind of court to issue rulings … well, let’s just say this so obviously laughable that the authors and sponsors of AZ HB 2582 should hang their heads in shame. They’ve just shown themselves to be idiotic dolts who thoroughly deserve every bit of derision that’s going to be heaped on them over their ignorant bill.

Hat tip: Mark at Skeptics & Heretics Forum, and Unreasonable Faith.

Photo credit: Michael Heilemann.

Tags: arizona, AZ HB 2582, AZ HB2582, canon law, childish, childishness, christian, christian right, Christianity, christians, freedom of religion, freedom of worship, halacha, halakha, HB 2582, HB2582, immature, immaturity, Islam, juvenile, karma, law, law code, law codes, law of karma, murfreesboro TN, muslim, muslims, nashville TN, neocrusade, neocrusader, neocrusaders, phoenix AZ, religious law, religious law code, religious law codes, religious right, ritual law, ritual purity, SB 1028, SB1028, shari'a, shari'a law, state law, tennessee, TN SB 1028, TN SB1028, tullahoma TN, united states, US

… if their lives are threatened by pregnancy complications. That’s right: Roman Catholic doctrine holds that pregnant women’s lives are forfeit. Proof of this insane doctrine comes in the form of an Arizona hospital losing its affiliation with the Church because it chose to save the life of a mother. The Houston Chronicle reports on this travesty (WebCitation cached article):

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix stripped a major hospital of its affiliation with the church Tuesday because of a surgery that ended a woman’s pregnancy to save her life. …

“In the decision to abort, the equal dignity of mother and her baby were not both upheld,” [Phoenix bishop Thomas] Olmsted said at a news conference announcing the decision. “The mother had a disease that needed to be treated. But instead of treating the disease, St. Joseph’s medical staff and ethics committee decided that the healthy, 11-week-old baby should be directly killed.”

Unfortunately, the hospital staff didn’t really have this choice. They had no time. The mother was fading fast. For what it’s worth, the hospital is not apologetic about this, and even in spite of this institutional excommunication, they’re standing by what they did:

Linda Hunt, president of St. Joseph’s, said doctors performed a necessary procedure on a patient who was getting worse by the minute and was in imminent danger of death.

“If we are presented with a situation in which a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life, our first priority is to save both patients. If that is not possible, we will always save the life we can save, and that is what we did in this case,” Hunt said. “Morally, ethically, and legally, we simply cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save.”

Hospital management considered the bishop’s demands extreme and would not give in:

Dr. Charles Alfano, chief medical officer at the hospital and an obstetrician there, said Olmsted was asking the impossible from the hospital.

“Specifically the fact that [Bishop Olmsted] requested we admit the procedure performed was an abortion and that it was a violation of the ethical and religious directives and that we would not perform such a procedure in the future,” he said. “We could not agree to that. We acted appropriately.”

The reason the bishop was so incensed about what St Joseph’s did? It was the “scandal” produced by it:

“They have not addressed in an adequate manner the scandal caused by the abortion,” [Olmsted] said.

That’s right, folks. The bishop didn’t cut off the hospital over the abortion per se, but over the “scandal” it produced.

Well, Bishop, may I suggest you’ve already got your hands full of one major multinational scandal already … you might consider resolving that in a candid, upright, and moral manner — before demanding any other scandal be dealt with.

And this is a lesson to any expecting mothers out there … beware of being treated in a Catholic hospital, should you have any problems before birth. Not all of them will be like St Joseph’s and fight the Church to save your life.

Photo credit: Demotivators.

Tags: abortion, arizona, bishop thomas olmsted, catholic church, charles alfano, diocese of phoenix, health care, healthcare, hospital, hospitals, linda hunt, medicine, misogynist, misogynists, misogyny, phoenix, phoenix AZ, pregnancy, pregnant, pro-choice, pro-life, prochoice, prolife, roman catholic, roman catholic church, st joseph hospital, st joseph hospital and medical center, thomas olmsted, women

The list of abusive priests whom the Vatican — and especially then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who would later become current Pope Benedict XVI — refused to discipline, grows longer and longer. The latest examples of years of Vatican stalling were in Arizona. The AP reports via Google News on these revelations (WebCite cached article):

The future Pope Benedict XVI took over the abuse case of an Arizona priest, then let it languish at the Vatican for years despite repeated pleas from the bishop for the man to be removed from the priesthood, according to church correspondence.

Documents reviewed by The Associated Press show that in the 1990s, a church tribunal found that the Rev. Michael Teta of Tucson, Ariz., had molested children as far back as the late 1970s. The panel deemed his behavior — including allegations that he abused boys in a confessional — almost “satanic.” The tribunal referred his case to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who would become pope in 2005.

But it took 12 years from the time Ratzinger assumed control of the case in a signed letter until Teta was formally removed from ministry, a step only the Vatican can take.

The problem is not that Arizona church officials wouldn’t do anything about Fr Teta. They did. But there were limits, and dangers remained that they could not do anything about:

Teta was removed from ministry by the bishop, but because the church’s most severe punishment — laicization — can only be handed down from Rome, he remained on the church payroll and was working with young people outside the church.

Another Arizona priest, Msgr Robert Trupia, similarly was allowed access to children for many years in spite of diocesan requests for the Vatican to act.

Astonishingly enough, however, the Tucson diocese claims nothing was done wrong in either case:

Fred Allison, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson, defended the Vatican’s handling of the Teta and Trupia cases. Internal church trials took years and the priests’ appeals took years more, Allison said.

Oh well. I guess that makes it OK to let a known abusive priest retain access to children. We can’t let a minor consideration such as the safety of children stand in the way of ensuring a long protracted ecclesiastical process be honored, now, can we?

Isn’t it strange how the organization that claims to be the world’s sole remaining arbiter of morality, can keep rationalizing allowing evil to continue to be done, within its ranks, and keeps justifying inaction, secrecy, and evasiveness?

P.S. Now that the AP is reporting on priests whom the Vatican wouldn’t stop, I wonder if the Vatican will now go on the offensive and claim the AP is “anti-Catholic” or part of a “masonic secularist” conspiracy — as they did when the New York Times reported on a similar priest in Wisconsin?

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: arizona, benedict xvi, cardinal joseph ratzinger, catholic church, catholic clerical abuse scandal, cdf, child abuse, child molestation, clerical abuse, clerical child abuse, congregation for the doctrine of the faith, diocese of tuscon, fr michael teta, holy see, joseph ratzinger, laicization, laicize, michael teta, msgr robert trupia, pope benedict, pope benedict xvi, priestly pedophilia, robert trupia, roman catholic, roman catholic church, tuscon AZ, vatican, vatican city

Tonight, most Americans will change the the time on their clocks, moving them ahead one hour, as of 2 a.m. tomorrow (Sunday March 14, 2010). Daylight saving time is, perhaps, one of the cleverest scams ever foisted on the modern world. The myths about DST are legion; I will cover just a few of them here.

First, it’s often said that DST was first imposed in order to “help” farmers. This is not true. Rather, it was first imposed systematically in Europe — and later in the US — during World War I, in order to aid industry by — hopefully — reducing coal consumption, and discourage nighttime air raids. DST was repealed after the war was over. It was reimposed, as a year-round measure, in the US during World War II (and was referred to as “War Time” for that reason), and for reasons similar to why it was imposed in WWI. After World War II, DST was rolled back, then applied haphazardly, and was not standardized until Congress passed the Uniform Time Act of 1966. (Even then, it was not truly “standardized,” since some jurisdictions were allowed not to observe it, most famously a lot of counties in Indiana, as well as the entire states of Arizona and Hawai’i.) At no time during any of this was DST requested by farmers, nor does it help them in any way; it has nothing whatever to do with agriculture. Rather, it was first imposed as a wartime-industrial measure.

Second, it’s frequently claimed that DST saves energy. Most recently this was the widely-trumpeted rationale for shifting the dates of DST (beginning in 2007) when Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The truth of the matter, however, is that DST does not in any way help save energy; in fact, it may cause more energy to be consumed than without it, as UCSB researchers determined (WebCite cached article) by looking at changes in energy consumption in Indiana after that state moved, in 2005, to observe DST statewide. Thus, the savings of fuel, which had primarily inspired enacting DST during the two world wars, probably had never been achieved! In addition to possibly encouraging added energy consumption, DST also causes expenditure of other resources, especially labor (for instance, when people — in both homes and businesses — must run around either changing all their clocks, computers, and other devices … or checking on them to be sure they correctly changed themselves).

Third, people often attribute the imposition of DST to Benjamin Franklin, who famously wrote on the subject. His piece, however, was not intended to be read literally. He was, instead, poking fun at what he considered to be Parisians’ sluggish and slovenly ways, as can be read in this suggestion:

Every morning, as soon as the sun rises, let all the bells in every church be set ringing; and if that is not sufficient?, let cannon be fired in every street, to wake the sluggards effectually, and make them open their eyes to see their true interest.

DST was, instead, first truly proposed by an entomologist from New Zealand named J.V. Hudson, who got the idea from his observations of insects.

Fourth, DST starting this weekend means that school children who, last week, were able to go to school in the morning with at least some sunlight, will now be heading to school in the dark once again, as they had in the depths of winter. There is no way that this can be said to benefit them.

Clearly the time has come for everyone to admit the simple truth about daylight saving time, which is that it is a vast inconvenience which does nothing helpful for anyone, does not do what most people claim it does (i.e. to save energy), and only causes trouble. Let’s end the charade. OK?

Photo credit: bowbrick.

P.S. Mark over at the Skeptics & Heretics Forum points out that DST is also associated with an increased incidence of heart attacks (WebCite cached article). Yet another very good reason to scratch it.

Tags: 1966, 2005, 2007, arizona, benjamin franklin, conservation, daylight saving time, daylight savings time, dst, energy, energy conservation, energy policy, energy policy act, energy policy act of 2006, energy savings, fraud, fuel, hawaii, indiana, john vernon hudson, jv hudson, labor, myths, scam, uniform time act, uniform time act of 1966, world war 1, world war 2, world war i, world war ii, ww1, ww2, wwi, wwii

I had not thought that Arizona authorities would do this … previously, their behavior had indicated their willingness to let James Arthur Ray (of The Secret fame) skate on the sweat-lodged deaths … but they finally arrested him for it, and apparently will prosecute him. ABC News reports on this unexpected development (WebCite cached article):

Controversial spiritual leader James Arthur Ray was arrested today and charged with three counts of manslaughter connected to the deaths at a Sedona, Ariz., sweat lodge in October.

The Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office announced the arrest in a statement on its Web site.

“With the arrest of James Ray, Sheriff [Steve] Waugh hopes the familes of the three victims will now have some measure of closure to this tragedy,” the post said.

The reason I wondered if they would do anything is because, from the very start, Arizona and Yavapai county officials have treated Ray with kid gloves. For instance, they did not question him at the scene, and did nothing to prevent him from leaving their jurisdiction, leaving them unable to question him soon after. The sheriff’s announcement specifically mentions “closure” for the families, so I assume they were instrumental in, perhaps, coercing him into arresting Ray.

It’s understandable they’d be sympathetic with Ray. He’s an integral part of the Sedona Arizona region’s New Age movement, and holds many events there, bringing in thousands of his sheep robotic followers, thus propping up the area’s economy.

Thus, it remains to be seen whether or not Ray will even see a trial; if authorities don’t truly want to prosecute, and are only posturing for benefit of the victims’ families, there may be a plea deal which lets Ray off the hook, or they may even later decline to go through with a trial.

Thus — not surprisingly for me anyway — I remain skeptical that Ray will ever truly be held accountable for what he did.

Tags: arizona, james a ray, james arthur ray, james ray, law of attraction, new age, new age movement, sedona AZ, sweat ldoge, sweat lodge deaths, sweat lodges, the secret, yavapai county, yavapai county AZ, yavapai sheriff

Or should I call this the Twelfth Post of Christmas 2009?

Well, it’s official. The “war on Christmas” is over, at least for 2009. We have no less an authority on this than Jan Brewer, Republican governor of Arizona. As reported by the Phoenix New Times:

Governor Brewer Puts the “Christmas” Back in “Christmas Tree,” and Makes it Official: Christmas Celebrates the Birth of Jesus

Governor Jan Brewer made it official today: Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus, Hanukkah is an eight-day festival of lights, and state employees can celebrate either holiday as they see fit.

Brewer signed Executive Order 2009-11 today, which puts the “Christmas” back in “Christmas tree” for state employees after it was renamed a “holiday tree” by former [Democratic] Governor Janet “the Grinch” Napolitano — sending right-wing bloggers into an anti-gay tirade last year.

As written, Ms Brewer’s executive order makes it sound as if the very existence of the United States utterly depends upon Christmas:

WHEREAS, the spirit of good will which has been found each December has been at the heart of our ability to live as one people despite differing faiths and backgrounds;

Honestly, Governor, I’d had no idea Christmas was so important. You’ve certainly set me straight! It’s the solemn duty of every red-blooded American — of whatever religion, or of none — to worship Christmas! Thanks for that clarification.

OK, enough of the sarcasm. Immediately after this “Christmas-is-our-patriotic-duty” implication, Ms Brewer goes on to completely misrepresent the facts:

WHEREAS, the Constitution does not permit the government to tolerate or engage in hostility toward religion, and the United States Supreme Court has affirmed that the public celebration of religious holidays, and the acknowledgment of religious origins, does not offend the Constitution;

That isn’t at all what the Supreme Court has said … as, for example, when SCOTUS ruled against Ten Commandments monuments in e.g. McCreary Cty v. ACLU of KY. Brewer is overstating her case here. Then she says:

WHEREAS, state and local officials in Arizona (and elsewhere) in the past have attempted to strip both Christmas and Hanukkah of their meaning, including establishment of policies forbidding state employees from placing religious items of celebration at their desks, re-naming of Christmas trees as “holiday” trees, and renaming of Menorahs as “candlesticks;”

Excuse me, but there is no way that either Christmas or Hanukkah can ever be “stripped of their meaning.” Renaming things in no way diminishes their metaphysical nature or their function within Christianity or Judaism. Names are, after all, just names. What something is named, in no way alters its spiritual nature, whatever that might be.

Both of these misrepresentations are enough to place Gov Brewer in my “lying liars for Jesus” club.

At any rate, I’m glad to see that Brewer declared victory for the Religious Right in the ongoing “war on Christmas” trope. Maybe it will put an end to this fake, staged dispute.

Tags: arizona, chanukah, christian right, hanukkah, jan brewer, liars for jesus, lying liars for jesus, merry christmas, religionism, religious right, republican, supreme court, war on christmas, war on christmas 2009

Update on my earlier blog entry on this subject: CNN reports that an arrest has been made:

An Iraqi man accused of running down his daughter in Arizona because she had become “too Westernized” is being held on two counts of aggravated assault, police said Saturday.

Police in Peoria, Arizona, say Faleh Hassan Almaleki, 48, struck his 20-year-old daughter, Noor Faleh Almaleki, and her friend Amal Edan Khalaf with the Jeep Laredo he was driving in a parking lot in Peoria on October 20.

Apparently he’d fled the country in an effort to avoid prosecution:

After the incident, Almaleki drove to Mexico and abandoned his vehicle in Nogales, Peoria police said.

He then made his way to Mexico City and boarded a plane to London, England. British authorities denied him entry into the country, and he was put on a plane back to the United States, police said.

I love how people like this are proud of committing violence in the name of their principles — whatever they are — but somehow don’t manage to be quite proud enough to allow themselves to be prosecuted for them. I could be mistaken, but that kind of behavior more closely resembles sniveling cowardice, than cultural pride.

Oh, and I love how a guy who ostensibly opposes “westernization” and “modernism,” chose to use a very modern and western-invented means of escaping justice … i.e. flying on an airplane.

Just saying.

Tags: arizona, cultural, culture war, faleh hassan almaleki, iraqi, Islam, modern, modernity, muslim, muslims, peoria AZ, westernized

The story of Muslims at war against modernity is an old one, but it manifested again recently in Arizona. A man allegedly tried to run over his daughter because she was “too westernized,” according to KNXV-TV in Phoenix:

Peoria [AZ] police are searching for a man who allegedly hit his daughter and a friend with his car because he believed his daughter had become “too westernized.”

Noor Faleh Almaleki, 20, and Amal Edan Khalaf, 43, were rushed to the hospital after being struck by the car in the parking lot of a Department of Economic Security building Tuesday, according to Peoria Police spokesperson Mike Tellef.

Tellef said 48-year-old Faleh Hassan Almaleki, father of Noor, is the alleged driver who hit the two victims and fled in a grey or silver 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee with Arizona license plate ADS-9192.

Tellef said family and friends told detectives that Faleh was mad at his daughter because she had become too “westernized” and was not living according to their traditional Iraqi values.

Ah well, I guess that’s more than sufficient reason to run her over, then, isn’t it?

</END SARCASM MODE>

Someday Muslims are going to stop waging their irrational metaphysical war against the passage of time and the relentless change of cultural mores … but unfortunately it appears this won’t happen any time soon.

Tags: arizona, cultural, culture war, faleh hassan almaleki, iraqi, Islam, modern, modernity, muslim, muslims, peoria AZ, westernized