Ten Commandments in Texas schools — poorly focused first lawsuit

Yes, it's nice that interfaith leaders have sued the state.

And, their personal concerns about the state teaching their kids morality are noted.

But, as a real get-on-and-ride vehicle? 

This ain't it.

Nowhere, from what I can tell from the Trib story, do they raise the REAL issue:

WHOSE Ten Commandments?

Setting aside the definitely different Jewish and Samaritan versions, are we talking

The Catholic / Anglican-Episcopalian / Orthodox / (and some other Christians) version?

The Lutheran version?

The Calvinist / Anabapist version?

This is like trying to shove coerced school prayer into Texas and dueling between a "Jesus, we just want to ..." Baptist prayer and a Catholic asking everybody to pray the rosary.

I didn't need Wiki to tell me any of this, but if you do (and we know the Lege does) here you go.

#DNCLeaks — religious bigotry of DNC and presumably Hillary Clinton

Via Mediate, as shown in this email that's part of WikiLeaks' new trove of Democratic National Committee email leaks, it's clear the DNC was at least mulling over the ideas of smeaering Bernie Sanders as a secularist.

So, secularist Clintonistas, and "my Democrats right or wrong," you're OK with this .... bigotry?

And Clintonistas, don't try to pawn this off on the DNC. Wikileaks is making clear its collaboration with the Clinton campaign.

And, as Mediate explains, emailer Brad Marshall is the party’s chief financial officer; this was NOT a low-level bad apple staffer. And, per the paragraph above, this wasn't spoken into a vacuum, nor idly.

Now, at least one Hillbot blogger, who I loathe more by the day, as a secular humanist, does deep knee bends of hypocrisy by saying, in essence, "but this was only talked about," while ignoring that Marshall is now lying, saying this wasn't about Sanders, just some generic Jewish guy.

Hell, for all we know, the question Sanders faced about his religion at the one Dem debate, even though two months before the Marshall email, may have been due to media prodding by Camp Clinton, the DNC, or both.



Yes, Denise Ghattas was speaking from the audience, but ... the question seemed peculiar.

Ghattas is 'connected,' the niece of Helen K. Persson of some $$$. (She gave millions in her will to a performing arts center named after the father of Henry Kravis of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts fame.) She's very "plugged in" to the philanthropic world in Flint, as shown in part on her Facebook page. Her Facebook friends include ABC's Bob Woodruff. Her husband is a doctor an attorney. She runs an educational consulting business but that link is the most I could find about it.

It's more likely, though, going by her FB friends, that she's religiously fairly conservative. It's been a long time since I lived in Flint, but I'm guessing she and her Arab-American husband are moderately conservative Catholics. I don't see any campaign contributions in her name, but another Ghattis gave to Michigan GOP Senator Spence Abraham.

And, for that matter, she could have lied about being undecided, or at least about being decided for one party but undecided for an individual candidate. Her question could have given Marshall ammo, though, on the flip side.

(Turns out she's a political independent, Orthodox not Catholic, and the question had a First Amendment backgrounf which wasn't explained by Anderson Cooper not having her explain the background to the question.)

Clintonistas will try to explain this away, of course, and fail, just as they try to explain away, and fail, her active membership in the secretive, right-wing leaning prayer group The Fellowship. Oh, and yes, involvement of Jim Wallis of Sojourners in the National Prayer Breakfast aside, The Fellowship is conservative, both religiously AND politically, per the start of a long Clinton profile.

And, Dems, if we're going to hint at smearing somewhat secular Jews, just how observant is Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

Update, and speaking of her:

1. Sanders has surrendered the rest of his backbone by trying to pin this all on her. In an interview with Jake Tapper, he didn't even mention Marshall.
2. Per that same link, DWS will not preside over the convention.
3. DWS has now resigned. That said, many Berners probably didn't realize Clinton wasn't a total fan of hers. And, at least for the convention, she's being replaced by cleat Clintonista Donna Brazile.

Update 2: Still without admitting the email was about Sanders, Marshall has apologized.

Conservative ministers hypocritically fuse church, state, military

A friend of a friend on Facebook recently posted one of these memes with attacking Clinton and Obama for lack of military service.

First, there's three big things militarily "wrong" with the picture.

One is that Shrub Bush, of course, used Air National Guard service, quite sporadically, to avoid Vietnam. Two is that the draft had ended before Obama graduated high school and thus he was not subject to Selective Service call-up.

And three is that Reagan, while in the Reserves even before World War II started abroad, let alone Pearl Harbor, was blind as a bat, never saw actual military work, and spent most of his active duty time making war movies, to be followed 25-50 years later by ongoing massive self-deception that he had in fact fought in World War II.

There's three things wrong with the attitude of the person who posted it, too. This gentleman, a Rev. Kevin Wenker is a pastor in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the main denomination of the conservative, even fundamentalist, wing of Lutheranism. (This, and his Facebook posts in general, are posted as "public," therefore, per my standards about social media and blogging or resharing, I'm not violating any privacy.)

The first thing wrong is a selective lack of respect, which is addressed in this gentleman's scriptures by Romans 13:

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

I highlighted that last line on purpose. Because that's obviously not being done by this gentleman, nor by thousands of other conservative Christian ministers, of whom he is a type.

Clearly, above cheap spoofing at both Obama and Clinton, the Obama picture bears either the insinuation that he is a Muslim, or was born in Africa. Both are, of course, lies, which is far below respect and honor.

The second thing wrong is somewhat related. It's the assumption that because the politics of one president, or one president's party, more than another, align with certain mores and doctrine of a denomination, that president should be run up the flagpole and saluted.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is "pro-life," and hence, part of the love for GOP presidents. But it, and most Protestant churches, who have quasi-officially, or at the individual pastor level, supported a man deliberately waging a war that was stupid, whether or not Augstinianly unjust, aren't so pro-life; that's even more true if they support the death penalty. 

Catholics, at least popes, get this right, with opposing the death penalty, and John Paul II questioning the Iraq invasion.

Heck, my own LCMS minister daddy got this right, in his last congregation, when some of his members got too gung-ho about running the Iraq War up the flagpole and saluting it.

Of course, the LCMS, like most conservative Protestant churches, has many members close to, or in Tea Party country, opposing Obamacare as "socialism" and more.

To that, and to Southern Baptists — per Jefferson's Danbury letter to Baptists — I note the fusion of church and state.

As for "supporting the troops"? This gets back to more and more veterans who say to wingnut types that your "thanks for your sacrifice" words are empty bullshit. I "support the troops" by not wanting them sent to stupid wars in the first place.

And, per Romans 13, and per additional blogging of friends like Dan Fincke, this is just another example of how fundamentalists can be selective about their fundamentalism.

Convert or pay a tax! Muslims ding Christians in Iraq, or .... Amerika?

Sounds horrible, doesn't it? ISIS telling Christians in Iraq that they must either convert to Islam or pay a tax.

A few counterpoints.

First, this is nothing new. Islamic states have done this since the Umayyad Caliphate.

Second, late medieval Christian states that allowed Muslims to remain, and to stay unconverted, had burdens of their own.

Third, and per the last part of the post?

Not to go too much Gnu Atheist, but tax deductions for religious groups, from state sales and property tax ones to all religious contributions, not just for their actual charitable work, being deductible from federal income taxes, could be considered a tax of sorts on secularists, could it not?

Survey says ... yes.

You can Google elsewhere for the totals, or I can tell you that it's $71 billion with a b in religious tax deductions per year.

And, while, theoretically, making that up elsewhere falls on us all, it really falls on secularists who are almost as small a minority in the US as Christians are in Iraq.

"The issue of religious tax preferment is especially relevant now because the number of Americans living outside any religious tradition continues to grow," said Tom Flynn, Free Inquiry's editor. "That underscores the unfairness of taxing all Americans to subsidize religious institutions that only some Americans utilize."

The most ridiculous part of that money is the $41 billion for capital gains exemptions.

Also, given the way the Catholic Church has worked to shelter its assets behind various walls, including tax-related ones, to try to avoid paying out money in sexual abuse lawsuits, besides dinging us secularists, there's a fair chunk of ethics issues involved.

So, secularlists?  Convert, or pay the tax that's not being paid by the religious.

Of course, as this ginned-up lawsuit over bald eagle feathers shows, wingnuts within Christianity always believe the First Amendment doesn't really apply to them.

Galloway v Town of Greece — legal strategies v Gnu Atheism (updated)

University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock
took part in a moot court session Monday in preparation
for oral arguments in Town of Greece v. Galloway
at the U.S. Supreme Court./Photo via U.Va.

Update: Galloway lost, Greece won, on a 5-4 vote; Wikipedia has a good overview. Per my comments below, plaintiff attorney Doug Laycock couldn't get a "count" up to 5 Justices in what was a tough case, beyond Gnu Atheist kibbitzing as to strategy. I disagree with the ruling; I would have accepted Breyer's more narrow concurring dissent rather than Kagan's somewhat broader one, but certainly would not have said no to Kagan.

Now that Galloway vs Town of Greece is at the Supreme Court, we may get more clarity on an issue the Nine in Black have long dodged, and often deliberately. Or, we may not. And, from a secularist's perspective, we may get clarity we don't want.

The question at hand, based on how the grievance was filed, has two different possible legal approaches.

One is that,  the whole idea of government-backed prayer, like invocations before city or town council meetings, as in the case of Greece, is religiously coercive.

The other is that prayer itself is not necessarily coercive, but the content of it, and to the degree it can be defined, the intent of it, is, or something along those lines.

And, even though one of the two plaintiffs is an atheist, the plaintiff's lawyer, University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, appears to opt for Strategy No. 2, not No. 1. And, per my warning at the end of the first paragraph, and contra some wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth in the last 36-48 hours from some Gnu Atheists, pursuing Strategy 2 is almost surely the right one, and throwing the plaintiffs' lawyer under the bus for so doing is ridiculous.

That said, as shown in the recent Proposition 8 and DOMA cases, in a situation like this, a lawyer has to count to "five," with one of those five being Justice Anthony Kennedy.That's how you win, and last I checked, a lawyer is supposed to win the case for his or her client, whether it's criminal or civil. Even if it's constitutional law.

Center for Inquiry Executive Director Ron Lindsay, a lawyer himself, has a piece that's good in some ways in lining out the case, but with bits of Gnu Atheist tone-snarking, enough for non-Gnu friends of mine to note that this is exactly the type of stuff that feeds into stereotypes of atheists. And, per what I said, basically accuses Laycock of throwing atheists under the bus. No quotes. Sorry. The more I think about it, the more I'm upset about the tone, and about him as a lawyer who knows better not writing better.

I find it pandering to Gnu Atheists, and this is nothing new, either in his doing so or in my noting that. The fact is that Laycock was the plaintiffs' lawyer from at least the time they responded to Greece's request to the Supreme Court to grant certiatori. Indeed, that response makes clear that it was about "sectarian prayers," and that's a quote from the response, and not about prayer vs. no prayer. The idea that CFI and Lindsay should know this, too, is doubly true since CFI was among groups filing amicus briefs.

So, A, this "Strategy No. 2" can't come out of the blue. B. Lindsay himself, as a lawyer, knows that in civil as well as criminal law, the lawyer's ultimate job is to win the case, even if the win is an ugly one at times. It's called legal strategy, per U.Va's PR explainer, and that piece makes that clear. That piece also makes clear Laycock's considerable experience in this area:

Laycock is best known for defending the free exercise rights of churches, having argued three cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of a Lutheran church, the Catholic archbishop of San Antonio and an Afro-Caribbean religious group. (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Church and School v. EEOC; City of Boerne v. Flores; and Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, respectively.)

Yet he also wrote the briefs on behalf of the plaintiffs in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, a case involving high school football prayers.

Ergo, C as a subset of A. The plaintiffs, and the variety of groups filing amicus briefs, including Lindsay's own CFI, Laycock addresses the applicability of Marsh, or not, and more, too. 

Fellow U.Va. law prof Micah Schwartzmann, who helped Laycock prep, also weighs in:

“In Town of Greece, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to clarify the limits of legislative prayer, especially as it is practiced by local governments,” he said. “Legislative prayer is constitutionally anomalous. Usually the government is not allowed to assert religious views. When it does so in a sectarian manner and in a context in which citizens are likely to feel pressure to conform, we should be concerned about that.”

Schwartzman added that he does not think anyone has expressed that concern more forcefully than Laycock.

“The respondents in Town of Greece are very fortunate to have him representing their views in the Supreme Court,” he said.

So, Ron Lindsay or Doug Haycock? I know which one I think probably is smart on how to actually plead this case. In short, this isn't as simple as Lindsay would have it. Nor, per the other blogger, does it seem that higher-grade legal talent, per my rhetorical questions, saw a chance to overthrow Marsh or this case to be the vehicle for that.

Meanwhile, the Gnus are trying to undermine Laycock's credibility by noting he was a plaintiff for the church denomination defendant in this case. That said, the ones snickering at Laycock and my defense of him conveniently ignored that SCOTUS ruled unanimously in that case. They also ignore that Laycock's years of expertise on the First Amendment in general mean that he doesn't necessarily agree with them. And, the fact that SCOTUS ruled unanimously, is arguably a testimony to Laycock's skills. 

Related to that, Policy Mic has a piece that claims trying to overthrow the town's stance entirely was the intent of co-plaintiff Stephens. It, in turn, has its own bit of snarkiness, and somewhat ignores the whole issue of whether the Marsh v Chambers case's precedent should or shouldn't be overturned. It even more, like Lindsay, ignores whether Marsh can be overturned, either in front of this Court in general or with this case as a particular vehicle.

Greece misses a chance to clarify precedent set by 1983's Marsh v. Chambers. In that case, the Court recognized "legislative prayer" (specifically, the public salary of a legislative chaplain) as legal so long as it was primarily ceremonial, traditional, and didn't "proselytize [or disparage] any one … faith or belief."

But as Justice William Brennan noted in his dissent, that answer didn't address the important question: should religion belong in the town hall, taxpayer-funded or not, at all? "The Court is carving out an exception to the Establishment Clause, rather than reshaping Establishment Clause doctrine …. If the Court were to judge legislative prayer through the unsentimental eye of our settled doctrine, it would have to strike it down as a clear violation of the Establishment Clause."

So, the question indirectly raised by this author is, was the intent of Stephens at least, to overthrow Marsh, at least once she understood what Marsh was?

He says in his next graf:

In other words, on the matter of legislative prayer, we still don't know the Court's opinion on whether the First Amendment's instruction that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" refers to government not establishing one particular religion or, as Justice Brennan argued, a prohibition on establishing the specter of religion itself. Unfortunately, that decision will have to wait.

He's probably right. However, Lenny DiFranco, who has the excuse of not being a lawyer, unlike Lindsay, but no other excuse, started this piece off with a bit of muddle-headedness that would be worth of St. Ron of Gnuness:

The two petitioners, Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, brought their legal action as part of an activist campaign to assert, and then entrench and fortify, the line between church and state. This righteous goal would have been well served had their case's central question addressed the legality of a town board soliciting religious prayer, which is a question the Supreme Court has, to date, skirted.

I'm convinced they acted out of this motivation, but for some reason they built their case around a nonsense claim of being offended at the explicit Christianity of the prayers. 

Note how much is fact-free here?

"I'm convinced." By what? "Righteous" goal? Assuming DiFranco is some sort of Gnu himself, doesn't this kind of illustrate how Gnus can adopt not only the posture, but the actual language of those they claim to despise? "For some reason they built their case around a nonsense claim." Again, really? The response to cert indicates this strategy is not de novo. Laycock's background indicates this is not a nonsense claim.

Back to the explicit claim by DeFranco, and the implicit one by Lindsay, that this case was "originally" about overthrowing Marsh. Set aside the fact they have no proof for any sudden bait and switch. That said, given the current make-up of the court, now is probably not the time to raise that issue anyway, and Laycock, beyond narrow legal grounds, knows that. Let's not forget that, to America at large, atheists are more vile than gays, and we just got DOMA narrowly decided in a theoretically pro-gay way. And, that said, he also appears ignorant of the fact that Laycock's been the plaintiffs' attorney for some time.

In light of that, it was Breyer and not Kennedy who invited Laycock, when he appeared to founder on whether any prayer might fit the non-coercive bill, to consider a different line of thought. As on Prop. 8 and DOMA, Breyer doesn't matter; Kennedy does. Oh, and I know Lindsay knows all of this.

That said, as Dahlia Lithwick notes at Slate, whether through how the complaint was filed, or the strategy of plaintiffs' lawyer Douglas Laycock, Marsh will likely remain in place.

That's even though Kennedy might appear poised to at least narrow it, per Lithwick:

Kennedy stops (defense lawyer Thomas Hungar again: “The essence of the argument is we've always done it this way, which has some force to it. But it seems to me that your argument begins and ends there.”

Kennedy adds, this “involves the state very heavily in the censorship and the approval or disapproval of prayers."

And, Kennedy appears to be ready to modify, at least, and potentially reject, the history as precedent idea that Hungar argued, and that was part of the basis of Marsh. That said, any good SCOTUS watcher knows not to read too much into oral argument posturing in general, and very much so with Kennedy

For a further understanding of that, you need to go to an excellent analysis at ScotusBlog. And, the Economist has a good straight news story.

An even worse problem, for me, and one should be indefensible for Obamiacs, is that Dear Leader filed an amicus brief — on the side of the Town of Greece.

OK, from here, let's look more at that Marsh decision and the dead weight of the historical background that Kennedy raised.

OK, from here on out, below the fold, I want to address two issues. One is my take on Marsh. Related to that is my generic take on how I'd like this issue to go, versus current issues of reality.

Steve Thomas a Perry-Abbott clone on #1stAmdt

Steve Thomas, a Republican state district judge in Texas, has just shown himself to be as much a hack on the 1st Amendment and church-state separation as Gov. Rick Perry and Attorney General Greg Abbott

District Judge Steve Thomas granted an injunction requested by the Kountze High School cheerleaders allowing them to continue displaying religious-themed banners pending the outcome of a lawsuit, which is set to go to trial next June 24, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said. Thomas previously granted a temporary restraining order allowing the practice to continue.

And, that time frame is the problem.

When this case goes to trial,wingnuts will argue, “This has been going on for nine months now, so what’s the harm of keeping it in place?”

Reality? It harms students who not only aren’t Christian, but are, but not fundamentalist Protestants. It harms the cheerleaders doing this and their supporters by teaching them wrong ideas about the First Amendment, church state separation, religious liberty, the tyranny of the majority and more.

And, it teaches them wrong about the First Amendment itself — since they’re wearing cheerleading uniforms, this is clearly a school issue, therefore, it’s a violation.

Finally, bluntly, it teaches them that lying in the name of god is OK.

Other than that, there’s no harm at all.

#ChuckColson dead; grannies safer; prisoners still exploited

In case you've not heard, Charles Colson (Wiki bio), one of the last remaining major players in the Watergate scandal, is dead at age 80.

The grannies part of the header, for those unfamiliar with Watergate days, refers to Colson's work for Richard Nixon on behalf of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (yes, actual acronym of CREEP) when he said he'd walk over his own grandmother to get Tricky Dick re-elected.

The prisoners comment is a riff on his Prison Fellowship, which, the story says, Colson created "to minister to prisoners, ex-prisoners and their families. It runs work-release programs, marriage seminars and classes to help prisoners after they get out." It was his new lease on life, riffing on his pre-conviction conversion for a new career.

And, let's start there with a reality dose on Colson's alleged post-Watergate saintliness.

Per the Yahoo story up top, Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg said that Colson never really apologized for threatening to rough him up, just for his role in the burglary of Ellsberg's office. And, that wasn't the only roughing up Colson allegedly threatened to do, or had done, in service of CREEP.

But, he's got more to answer to as long-term head of Prison Fellowship.

First, here in Texas, he served as a "front" for then-Gov. George W. Bush to make overstated, even directly untruthful claims about the power of faith-based groups, not only in prison rehabilitation, but outside the walls. (Unfortunately, our current president, Dear Leader, Barack Obama, has actually expanded Bush's faith-based ministries presidential program. I'm surprised tea partiers haven't said that's part of his secret Muslim plan of U.S. control.)

Second, he got plugged in to The Family, the semi-secret inside-DC Christian prayer/activist group.

Third, he supported, in a letter he and other evangelical leaders sent to Bush, a just-war rationale for invading Iraq.

But, let's get back to those prisoners. First, on the faith-based programs issue, besides not always looking at their success rate, Colson ignored issues of constitutionality, even though one federal court had already, by the time he fronted for Bush, ruled that forced attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings was a First Amendment violation (thereby also, in essence, finding that AA was religious).

And, that's despite a 1987 quote, per his Time obit, that says differently:

Colson argues that each institution has a distinct, God-given role. Churches should emphasize spirituality and avoid the corrupting enticements of political power. Similarly, he opposes government- organized school prayers, insisting that “propagating moral vision” should be the job of the church, not the state.

Hmmm... seems to have ignored that, in reality.

But, let's not stop there.

If Colson REALLY cared about prisoners, then why did he never pair the power of his organization with Project Innocence? Riffing on that, why did he never try to persuade political and religious conservatives to face up to the issue of wrongful incarcerations?

For that matter, why didn't he address the socioeconomic reasons behind spiking incarceration rates? That would be the ever-rising incarceration rates that started rising a lot more rapidly about the time he got out of prison, as shown in the graphic, and about the time the income gap in America started widening again, in part due to the political conservativism he believed in. (And, no, it's not all due to population increases; by now, all baby boomers, AND, the kids of older baby boomers, have all "aged out"  of prime criminality ages.)

Why didn't he ever speak about the capitalistic, slavery-like part of the drive behind this, the push for ever more prison privatization, led by the privatizing companies like Wackenhut and Corrections Corporation of America? If he wanted to help those who were incarcerated live new lives after they got out, why didn't he address ongoing cuts in rehabilitation programs, especially at the private prisons? Ditto on his not addressing guard abuse, again, generally worse at private prisons.

And, that said, how much could a man who graduated an Ivy League school, who might be called an Eastern elitist by today's tea partiers (or by Spiro Agnew back then), who served seven months in a white-collar prison, really understand what he was dealing with?

For that matter, did Prison Fellowship cherry-pick the inmates with which it worked? I don't know, but it's possible; if anybody has any information about that, leave a comment.

No, Chuck Colson may have helped prisoners, but it was within a conservative agenda. The agenda was still running the show.

So, yes, before the hagiography machine runs too quickly, let's step back to reality.

Prayer Day suit against Perry tossed

Here's the nut graf on the legal ruling, from the latest on the AP:

U.S. District Judge Gray H. Miller said the Freedom From Religion Foundation argued against Perry's involvement based merely on feelings of exclusion, but did not show sufficient harm to merit the injunction they sought.

Disagree with rulings like this in general, whether on freedom of religion First Amendment issues, or on warrantless wiretapping First Amendment issues. It puts an undue burden of proof on a plaintiff who doesn't have sufficient knowledge to cross that threshold.

That said, Tricky Ricky said he was just like Obama:

“My prayer is that the courts will find that the first amendment is still applicable to the governor no matter what they might be doing and that what we've done in the state of Texas or what we've done in the governor's office is appropriate,” he said. “It's no different than what George Washington or Abraham Lincoln or President Truman or President Obama have done.”

That said, previous rulings on the National Day of Prayer were wrong for similar reasons.

More here on the decision.

It's sad when secularists diss the First Amendment

For one thing, if freedom of religion is to include freedom from having other religions imposed upon us, the First Amendment, fully supported and upheld, is a vital legal and constitutional protection.

But, if secularists want to be selective about it, we have a problem.

Specifically, in this case, it's San Francisco's controversial initiative to ban circumcision — a ban that makes no exeeption for religiously-grounded circumcisions.

Ron Lindsay, executive director of Center for Inquiry, blogs against San Francisco's idea.

And, most of the 20-plus respondents ignore the religious idea.

Others claim that circumcision is so dangerous that the state has a compelling interest in trumping the First Amendment. (And, while any surgery is dangerous, this simply isn't true, in general, of circumcision.)

One or two argue the "pain trauma" angle, claiming a 3-day-old will be permanently harmed mentally by pain he will never remember.

Even non-Gnu Atheists are a bit out to lunch on this one, in many cases.

And, for those who want to selectively support First Amendment protections, I suggest you acquaint yourselves with "A Man for All Seasons," specifically, what More told Roper about the rule of law.

Texas: Millions to fight 1st Amdt, not one more cent for schools

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, sometimes good (especially on open records issues) and sometimes as bad a grandstander as Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst or U.S. Senator John Cornyn, has chosen to be a grandstander, again, over school prayer.

This time, he's spending Texas taxpayer dollars to fight a federal court order barring school-sanctioned prayer at a public high school graduation. Federal court rulings and their history on this issue are pretty clear, yet Abbott continues to waste money.

Meanwhile, Perry, Dewhurst and the GOP-dominated Texas Legislature still refuse to tap the state's $9.4 billion Rainy Day Fund surplus to provide more money for public schools.

Of course, more money for schools might have more educated students questioning such nuttery in the future.

Of course, we now have the hypocrisy trifecta, courtesy of Gov. Helmethair himself, who appears to have had his "I'm not quite yet running for president" dance get tripped up by a special session of the Legislature:

Gov. Rick Perry often cites the state budget as the only thing Texas lawmakers have to do. And, when asked before the legislative session what the state's top spending priorities should be, he named education.

Looks like education was actually about ... uh ... 9.4 billion spots below being his top priority.

10 Commandments & govt NOT just a red-state issue

Decades ago, the Fraternal Order of the Eagles erected, for free, stone monument copies of the Ten Commandments in front of many local, county and state government buildings. Some of these are still standing 40 or more years later, and not just in places like Texas, like the legal-controversy-generating one on the grounds of the state Capitol.

I present the view in front of a Santa Fe, New Mexico fire station:

Interesting new addendum; per skeptical/liberal friend Leo Lincourt, the Eagles' monuments were part of a massive publicity scheme by Cecil B. DeMille to help promote the overwrought movie, "The 10 Commandments."

Fleecing the IRS, if not the "flock"

Non-Catholic ministers don't take vows of poverty. Some are FAR from it.

Example?

A minister gets a base salary of $40,000 AND a housing allowance of $65,000.

Guess what he pays in federal income tax?

A paltry $740.

Click the link above to see all the bullshit deductions he gets.

That's why, per the interviews Dan Dennett had recently with atheist and agnostic ministers, I can sympathize with them not wanting to leave the ministry for financial reasons.

Having gotten my M.Div myself, with a pre-ministry undergraduate degree, and then willingly NOT gone down that route myself?

I could empathize, but I deliberately choose not to do so.

Jewboy, you can't run the Texas House

WTF? Some House GOP Christian conservatives want to depose Texas House Speaker Joe Straus just because he's Jewish.

No, seriously.

Antisemitic, or just concerned about preservation?

I can see both sides of the issue in a long-ongoing standoff in Litchfield, Conn.

It's a complicated issue. Having seen communities try to preserve historic districts, I can appreciate Litchfield's stance. And, a swimming pool certainly doesn't fit the idea of "historic preservation."

The group's plans included a synagogue, living space for Rabbi Joseph Eisenbach and his large family and a swimming pool for the Chabad group's popular summer camp.

"This case is not about the construction of a synagogue," (Borough of Litchfield historic district commission attorney James) Stedronsky said recently. "It's about the construction of a personal palace for Rabbi Eisenbach, complete with a 4,500-square-foot apartment and an indoor swimming pool big enough to serve a summer camp."

At the same time, rich, WASPy Connecticut communities have some history of being antisemitic sundown towns. Including Litchfield. As the Hartford Courant notes, a Willson Whitman, visiting in 1943, discovered Jews were not allowed to own property there.

That said, on the next page of the Courant story, we find that Jews do live in Litchfield today, and at least some of them oppose the Lubavitcher Chabad project on grounds similar to the historic commission: it's too big and unfitting.

From what I read, I'd say the commission isn't being antisemitic. That said, I don't know if either side has discussed or offered compromises, or not. Unfortunately, a judge and court is not an arbitrator. All the judge can do is rule for either the commission or Chabad; he or she can't craft a compromise. (I wonder if in Continental European jurisprudence, as opposed to the Anglo-American model, judges can do that.)

A cross, like a river, is never the same crossed twice

OK, the American Legion says it's going to build a new cross on the putatively private postage stamp of land in the middle of the Mojave National Preserve if nobody finds the one stolen yesterday that raised a Supreme Court ruckus.

But, ff the Legion rebuilds the cross, aren't we under a new setting, i.e., even if the Legion claims that a cross was a symbol of "civic religion" at the time of the original, that cross ain't such a symbol today. This ain't WWI. And, Nino Scalia et al have been told to their collective faces that Jewish veterans' graves don't have crosses.

(Not to mention Muslim veterans' graves, nonreligious servicemembers' graves, etc.)

So, since the land swap for a private parcel postage-stamp plot is still in limbo at the federal district court level, I dare the Legion to try building a new one.

First Amendment trumps 12-Steppers again

When will officers of the parole, rehab and other parts of the legal system finally learn that AA is a religion, under two U.S. appellate court rulings, rather than either be ignorant or lie? And, in light of that, assume that NA is the same?

And, when will they either ignorantly or arrogantly stop costing the rest of us money through leaving state governments, or the federal one, open to lawsuits, damages, etc.? And, since the 9th Circuit, which includes California, was one of two federal appellate courts, in 2007, to have already found AA to be religious in First Amendment terms, this case is even more egregious.

Considering that the Bay Area is home to a major "secular" recovery group, Lifering Secular Recovery, parole agent Mitch Crofoot is either very ignorant or very lying.

Our constutional law(breaking) scholar Prez strikes again

Despite U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb finding the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional, and rejecting Department of Justice arguments to the contrary, President Barack Obama will go ahead and sign a presidential proclamation about the day.

Gee, maybe he'll fire a Predator drone at Judge Crabb.

Judge: Natl Day of Prayer unconstitutional

I'd like to personally thank U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb for this bit of constitutional wisdom.

Crabb wrote that the government can no more enact laws supporting a day of prayer than it can encourage citizens to fast during Ramadan, attend a synagogue or practice magic.

"In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual's decision whether and when to pray," Crabb wrote.

Indeed. This encourages local-level events, which become even more coercive.

The Obama Administration said that federal proclamations of the day are simply an "acknowledgment" of prayer's place in society. Crabb disagreed, rightfully in my opinion:

"It goes beyond mere 'acknowledgment' of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context," she wrote. "In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience."

This one is going to be fought out for quite a while.

Why does Don McLeroy hate the First Amendment?

Along with his theocratic compadres on the Texas State Board of Education? The seven social conservatives, joined by three more "moderate" GOPers on the board, blocked a provision that would have required high school social students students to learn about the First Amendment:

(Board member Mavis) Knight said all she was trying to do was encourage study of the First Amendment language that states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Oh, no, we can't have Texas school children being taught analytical thinking.

And, of course, that's of a parcel with not just the SBOE, but fundamentalists in general.

After all, if "we" have all these fundamentals, concrete and inerrant, there's nothing to analyze. And, no need to question the "powers that be."

Unless, they're a bunch of libruls, let alone stinking godless communist real libruls.

Update, March 12: Now McLeroy and cohort are racists, too, denying that any Tejanos were killed at the Alamo.

U.S. is still 'under God'

Even if you don't have a deity, you're assigned one by civic religion, even per the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously liked Michael Newdow.

The court also ruled that it's "In God We Trust," even for those of us who don't.

Both phrases are textbook exemplars of civic religion in times of crisis.

Most intelligent people know the "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance (U.S. and U.S.-molded Philippines the only two countries in the world with a flag pledge) as part of the Second Red Scare in 1954.

For those who don't know about the coinage, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase pushed for the motto on it in 1864, as he worried, along with many other Northerners, that war weariness might be setting in. Too bad Lincoln couldn't have given him his Second Inaugural Address nine months in advance, telling Chase and like-minded people that "the prayers of neither (the North nor the South) were fully answered."

That said, if your nutters enough to compare this to racial segregation, Newdow, you kind of deserved to lose.