Miscellanea Agnostica

By now you’ve probably heard that the US Supreme Court has decided that the Westboro Baptist Church … which is, essentially, just the family of ordained Baptist preacher Fred Phelps … can protest at military funerals. CNN reported on this decision in Snyder v. Phelps (WebCite cached article):

A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.

The justices, by an 8-1 vote, said Wednesday that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

While I’m not in favor of hyperreligious lunatics broadcasting hatred wherever they can, I can’t disagree that the Phelps clan has the right to say what it wants to, in a public place.

The real issue here … which is (conveniently) being dodged by a lot of folks, is: What is it about religion that gives sanctuary to hateful people like the Phelpses, so that they can justify their horrific “message”?

Don’t make the mistake of thinking this is just about the Phelpses. Religiously-inspired bigotry and hate is nothing new. Through most of its history, Christianity has worked to foster a certain amount of anti-Semitism; even now, hatred of Jews still exists among Christians, and is even more pronounced in the Islamic world. White supremacy also has a Christian orientation.

I understand most Christians are not hateful pricks like Fred Phelps, Hutton Gibson, and Wesley Swift, to name just a few. I get that. The problem is, if Christianity means something … and if that meaning is both plain and not the hateful one that people like the Westboro Baptists claim … then it should not be possible for anyone to use Christianity as a “safe harbor” to justify their hatred. That Christianity — or any other religion — can be used as a rationale for hatred, is not to its credit.

It means its message is — by definition — less than clear, and easily muddled by external considerations. It means that religion can be twisted into something it had never been intended to be, and say things it had never been intended to say. It means that, in the name of doing good, people of that religion can — ironically — promote a lot of evil.

If there are any Christians out there who truly think their religion has a definite meaning which is not what the disgusting Phelps clan trumpets all over the place, I must ask you: What are you doing about them? How, exactly, do you plan to prevent them from absconding with your religion? If you aren’t willing to do anything, then how is any objective, outside observer of Christianity supposed to know that Christianity’s message is not what the Phelpses say it is?

Think about the message you send to others, about your own religion, in your dealings with Fred Phelps and his clan.

Tags: bigot, bigotry, bigots, christian, christian identity, Christianity, christians, fred phelps, fred phelps sr, gay, gays, hate, hate speech, hateful, hatred, homosexual, homosexuality, homosexuals, phelps, racism, scotus, snyder v. phelps, supreme court, supreme court of the united states, united states supreme court, us supreme court, westboro baptist church, westboro baptists, white supremacy

In a change from its usual dutiful, obedient, lock-step march behind the vast hosts of the Religious Right, the US Supreme Court dealt a blow to a Christian group at a law school in California. The AP via Google News reports on this decision (WebCite cached article):

An ideologically split Supreme Court ruled Monday that a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won’t let gays join, with one justice saying that the First Amendment does not require a public university to validate or support the group’s “discriminatory practices.”

The court turned away an appeal from the Christian Legal Society, which sued to get funding and recognition from the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law. The CLS requires that voting members sign a statement of faith and regards “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” as being inconsistent with that faith.

But Hastings, which is in San Francisco, said no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation.

Isn’t it amazing that fundamentalist Christians believe themselves to be above the rules everyone else must obey? They get to do whatever they want, ’cause of Jesus … I guess. This group thought they could have it both ways … they could gain recognition by the school — and the funding that goes along with it — without actually having to abide by the rules required of recognized groups.

(I’m not sure that aspiring lawyers ought to be looking for ways to excuse themselves from having to obey rules … I mean, that kind of runs counter to the entire field of law … but hey, I’m just a cold-hearted, cynical, skeptical, God-hating agnostic heathen, so what do I know?)

The Court’s theocrat-in-chief made just the sort of doomsday prediction one would expect from any mindless religiofascist:

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a strong dissent for the court’s conservatives, saying the opinion was “a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country.”

What Alito doesn’t get is that a lack of school recognition doesn’t prevent the members of the Christian Legal Society from believing in whatever reprehensible notions they feel like … all it means is they can’t get any funding from the school. And isn’t that what this was all about … extracting money from the Hastings College of the Law? I wonder what Jesus would say about the Christian Legal Society’s obvious greed.

Photo credit: Thomas Hawk.

Tags: california, christian legal society, christian right, gay, gays, hastings college of the law, homosexual, homosexuality, law school, religious right, san francisco CA, scotus, supreme court, united states supreme court

The Mojave Cross, which I blogged about just a short time ago, which the US Supreme Court ruled must remain on federal land — because if it’s taken down or moved to private land, all fallen veterans will instantly be forgotten* — has been stolen! Here’s the report from CNN (WebCite cached article):

A war memorial shaped like a cross that has been at the center of a Supreme Court fight has been torn down by vandals from its remote perch in a California desert.

The 6-foot-tall metal structure was removed Sunday night from Sunrise Rock in a lonely stretch of the Mojave National Preserve, said government officials and veterans groups that have been fighting for years to keep the cross on national park land.

The National Park Service said it is investigating the incident; no arrests had been made as of Tuesday morning.

The only thing I can say about this is: Put it back!!!

Sure, I get that a religious-activist Supreme Court thinks all Americans must bow and scrape before a massive cross in the desert. I get that their attempt at creating a theocracy is not appropriate. I get all that.

But that cross does not belong to whoever stole it, and theft is not an appropriate response, not even to governmental proselytizing for Christianity.

So, whoever stole it … put it back and turn yourselves in. Take whatever punishment is coming to you, and have done with it.

* No, I still haven’t figured out the mechanism by which this is supposed to happen. I’ll let you know, just as soon as someone delusional enough to understand this kind of reasoning, figures it out for me.

Photo credit: watch4u.

Tags: christian, Christianity, christians, government, mojave cross, proselytize, proselytizing, Religion, stealing, stolen, supreme court, theft, theocracy, thieves

President Obama announced his latest choice for the US Supreme Court; it’s Solicitor General Elena Kagan [WebCite cached article]. The Religious Right — along with the rest of the country’s conservative faction — is going nuts about it. But the R.R.’s objection is not based on her qualifications or lack thereof. They object to her based on what they assume (not what they know) about her sexuality. Religion Dispatches covers some of the R.R.’s whining and bellyaching:

Focus on the Family, which previously signaled it would not support gay nominees because they lack the necessary “character” and “moral rectitude,” today opposes Kagan because of her “her emotional and legal commitment to the LGBT agenda.” And the American Family Association demands that the media ask Kagan if she’s a lesbian, because “no lesbian is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.”

The problem with all of this — aside from the fact that these people seem to think that any gay person is too deficient ever to have any kind of federal office in the first place, which is a ridiculous position — is that it’s not even known whether or not Kagan is gay! A blogger recently suggested she was, and CBS News foolishly relayed this unfounded claim as fact; the White House, however, says this is untrue, and it cannot safely be assumed that Kagan is gay. (The blogger who started the rumor is Ben Domenech, who was a Bush Junior operative. Needless to say, his credibility on the matter is very thin, if not nonexistent.)

At any rate, the Religious Right continues to denounce Kagan as a lesbian and whines about her nomination to the Supreme Court based on that … but they have no idea if she really is a lesbian in the first place.

This wouldn’t be the first time the R.R. has stamped and fumed childishly — and sanctimoniously — about something, without knowing the facts of the matter. And one can safely assume it won’t be the last. More’s the pity.

At any rate, Ms Kagan’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with whether or not she can serve as a Supreme Court Justice. I for one do not care whether she’s gay or not.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: anti-gay, barack obama, childish, christian right, elena kagan, gay, harvard law school, homophobe, homophobes, homophobia, homophobic, homosexual, immature, immaturity, juvenile, lesbian, lgbt, nomination, Religion, religious, religious right, scotus, solicitor general, supreme court, supreme court nomination, us supreme court, white house

Yes, it’s true. And there is no other explanation for their ruling. The United States Supreme Court has declared that the federal government can erect monuments to specific religions on federal property and refuse to build them for other religions. The effect is that they’re allowing the federal government to proselytize for Christianity. The New York Times reports on the decision they handed down (WebCite cached article):

A badly fractured Supreme Court, with six justices writing opinions, reopened the possibility on Wednesday that a large cross serving as a war memorial in a remote part of the Mojave Desert may be permitted to remain there.

The Court ranged far afield — both literally and metaphorically — in order to arrive at this conclusion:

“A Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in a plurality opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies would be compounded if the fallen are forgotten.”

I’m not quite sure how all those fallen Christian soldiers would have to end up “forgotten,” if the Mojave Cross were moved to private land instead of federal property, but that’s Justice Kennedy’s reasoning. Apparently he thinks that if that particular cross were taken down, all those soldiers would be “forgotten.” They will only be remembered, if the Mojave Cross is left standing on federal property. According to him.

No, I can’t explain it, I’m merely quoting it for you. Just goes to show that being appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court doesn’t mean you’re always rational.

Unfortunately the Times doesn’t provide the context of this lawsuit, but thankfully, ABC News does (cached version):

The cross stood peacefully for years until the Park Service was asked if a Buddhist Shrine could also be built near the cross.

When the Park Service declined the request, Frank Buono, a retired National Park Service employee, expressed his dismay that the government was showing favoritism of one religious symbol over another. He later filed suit in federal district court.

[On page 2, cached] While Buono, a Roman Catholic, did not find the cross itself objectionable, he was disturbed that it stood on government property when the government would not allow individuals to erect other permanent displays celebrating their religions.

Thus, what the Supreme Court has done, is to decide that, 1) the federal government can build monuments to single specific religions (the cross is a symbol of Christianity only — not of Islam, or Judaism, or Sikhism, or Wicca, or Hinduism, or any other religion); and 2) it can simultaneously refuse to build monuments to any other religion. Together those two sure look like “government pushing Christianity on people” to me.

Yes, I know, the cross was built by the VFW, not the federal government … but federal approval is required nonetheless, meaning the matter is completely up to them as to whether or not it’s built. And since they forbid a private party to build a Buddhist monument, that means the government has chosen sides and is favoring Christianity. Period.

Who said the separation of church and state was alive and well in the United States? It isn’t … not with the Supreme Court packed with theocratic religionists!

Hat tip: Skeptics & Heretics Forum on Delphi forums.

Photo credit: watch4u.

Tags: california, christian, christian right, Christianity, christians, cross, mojave cross, mojave desert, mojave national preserve, monument, proselytization, proselytize, proselytizing, religionism, religionist, religionists, religious right, scotus, Separation of church and state, socas, supreme court, theocracy, theocrat, theocrats, united states supreme court, us supreme court

Lots of people remain fuzzy on the “separation of church and state” thing in the US. By “lots of people,” I mean — of course — religionists who wish to use the government to promote their religion and who consider SOCAS to be a violation of their religious freedom. (To them, “religious freedom” means the power and authority to force everyone to follow their religion; if they are ever prevented from doing that, they see it as a reduction of their “religious freedom.”) The Hartford Courant reports on a Connecticut case which reached the US Supreme Court (WebCite cached article):

U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Change Order to Remove Religious Materials

The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand an appellate ruling last summer that settled a dispute in Manchester involving government and religion.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered a small, church-operated post office in Manchester to clear its postal counter of religious materials such as prayer cards and a collection box supporting an outreach mission among the poor. The ruling was limited to the small, storefront post office on Main Street operated, under contract with the United States Postal Service, by the Full Gospel Interdenominational Church. …

The Main Street post office in Manchester is a Contract Postal Unit, one of 5,000 mostly small operations around the country in which the postal service contracts with private parties to sell postal products, rent post office boxes and collect mail. There are contract offices in private homes, gas stations, groceries, seminaries and hardware stores. Several are operated by faith-base [sic] organizations, the appellate court said.

What fierce religionists — who want to use government to promote their religion — don’t realize is that religious liberty overall is fostered, rather than hindered, by government remaining neutral, where religion is concerned. They don’t really care about anyone’s religious liberty but their own.

Tags: 2nd circuit court, apellate court, connecticut, contract postal unit, contract postal units, full gospel interdenominational church, manchester CT, post office, Religion, religious, religious materials, scotus, Separation of church and state, socas, supreme court, united states postal service, us post office, us supreme court, usps

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

My last blog entry described irrational and incorrect beliefs about President Obama abound among the Right. I suggested at the end that not only is it a just-plain bad idea to believe things that are verifiably untrue, it can also be deadly. Television station KDKA reports on a massacre in Pittsburgh which was fueled, apparently, by one such incorrect belief:

A man opened fire on officers during a domestic disturbance call Saturday morning, killing three of them, a police official said.

Friends said 23 year-old Richard Poplawski feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.

Three officers were killed.

Poplawski’s fear, of course — even if it were true — is not a valid reason to gun down three police officers. And at the moment, the possibility of mental illness causing this (i.e. Poplawski’s fear is actually the product of a paranoid delusion) cannot be ruled out.

Despite this, the fact is that there is no pending gun ban. Not only are there no pending plans of this sort, it would be very difficult to pull it off, given the Supreme Court’s decision last June in District of Columbia v. Heller, which interprets the right to own guns rather broadly. In order to put through a gun ban, Obama would have to get this decision reversed first — and given the Court’s makeup as well as the sluggishness of the federal court system, it would take years for this to happen. Obama could appoint “liberal” justices and “stack the Court,” however, it would take two or three replacements to accomplish this, and that isn’t going to happen any time soon.

People on the Right believe a lot of things about Obama, most of them untrue, or distorted (Obama has expressed sympathy for gun controls, but hasn’t made any moves in the direction of changing gun laws, much less the total ban that Poplawski thought was coming). It’s time for them to grow the hell up and stop mouthing off inaccuracies or untruths. One never knows who might hear these lies and act on them. Stop it already. We’ve reached the point where this raging immaturity simply can no longer be accepted. Grow up and face the truth.

Tags: district of columbia v. heller, execution, gun ban, gun rights, irrationality, lies, massacre, pittsburgh PA, propaganda, richard poplawski, shooting, supreme court