first thing we do, let's burn all the witches

Well, let's see:

-- Via Pandagon, there's this humdinger: the 4th Circuit upholds its good name as the most knee-jerk right-wing in the land by ruling that "a Virginia county can refuse to let a witch give the invocation at its meetings by limiting the privilege to clergy representing Judeo-Christian monotheism." As Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson III reassures us, "The Judeo-Christian tradition is, after all, not a single faith but an umbrella covering many faiths." So, see, you have a lot to choose from. Try any of our 31 Judeo-Christian flavors! Any of you guys who said you really didn't mind having the 10 Commandments nailed to the courthouse wall wanna tell me how this isn't a violation of the Establishment Clause?

-- Then we have my favorite act of civil disobedience of the week: A college student willing to go to jail for the right to ask Ann Coulter, in a public forum, ""You say that you believe in the sanctity of marriage. How do you feel about marriages where the man does nothing but fuck his wife up the ass?"

-- And finally...we have the fine folks of the Kansas State School Board, who are spending taxpayer time and money this week on public hearings to assess the scientific validity of "Intelligent Design" creationism vs. the perversions of monkey-shagging Darwinism. Unfortunately for them, not a single one of the scientists they invited to testify accepted the invitation, on the grounds that there was nothing to debate. But they're going ahead anyway, calling in all the big names in the exciting field of faith-based biology. And guess who's traveling the farthest? That well-known expert on the subject, Mustafa Akyol. Who, you ask, is Mustafa Akyol? Well, funny story about that. He's a Turkish columnist and spokesman for a group called Bilim Arastirma Vakfi, a.k.a. the Science Research Foundation, which has apparently been largely responsible for chasing evolutionary biology out of the texts of the once-secular Turkish education system and replacing it with fundamentalist Islamic creationism. He is, I guess, being brought to Kansas as a rebuttal of sorts to charges that Intelligent Design "theory" is really just Christian evangelism in a thin veil. Turns out it's palatable to Muslim fundamentalists too! What's really striking to me about this is that, while liberals and other Creatures of the Dark have been drawing parallels for years between fundamentalist Islam abroad and fundamentalist Christianity at home (as well as other kinds of fundamentalism the world over), I didn't seriously expect to see any Bible-loving real Americans actually joining forces with their Quranic burqa-wielding brethren any time soon, given the slight image problem that fundamentalist Islam still has in this country. But with Pat Robertson declaring "activist judges" a worse scourge than the 9/11 hijackers, I guess it's enemy-of-my-enemy time. They can fight over whose god is false once they stamp out all the heathens, humanists and science teachers.

Oh, it's a funny old world.

Comments

[SayUncle]

If the county is the one 'doing the praying', seems to me they can pick whatever religion they want to do it. The court apparently agrees.

[Julie]

Puts a new spin on the old saying...With enemies like that, who needs friends.

[gypsy frocks]

As always, Uncle, I am impressed by your keen grasp of constitutional principles...of Kabeezikstan or Palookaville or wherever it is you live. Tell me more about your culture! Do you wear funny furry hats? Here in the United States, we take a somewhat different view of these things. It all has to do with the First Amendment, which you can probably look up on Google if your repressive government hasn't curtailed access to the Internet. In the meantime, keep the faith and keep posting from behind your iron curtain. Know that the thoughts of the free world are with you. Stay strong.

[SayUncle]

First, your comment was asinine and stupid. Heck, throw in a Nazi reference so you can get the Godwin out of the way. I apologize for, you know, addressing the issue you brought up.

Second, if you want to talk about the merits of the first amendment regarding whether or not there should be prayer hosted by the .gov, then do that. But the fact is:

High school football games begin with prayers

Sessions of congress begin with prayers

Supreme court sessions begin with prayers

We have national prayer day

Just about (if not) every state legislative session begins with prayers

So, if a county government can have prayers (which apparently they can) then they can choose which religious officials can officiate those prayers.

[gypsy frocks]

Oh Uncle, where is thy sting? Sorry, but after five-plus years of exposure to your curdled conception of constitutional liberties and civic responsibility -- and god knows how many megapixels of sincere, patient discussion -- I'm not inclined to give you much more than sarcasm. For example, I could try to explain to you that, in fact, prayers before public events are themselves subject to constitutional challenge, and the case law is murky; and that the key underlying justification for them is that they are an ecumenical recognition of the unknown rather than an endorsement of any particular iteration thereof; and that as soon as you start narrowing the form of that recognition you are de facto creating a gap between religions accorded respect by the state and religions not likewise accorded; and that that is exactly the kind of state sponsorship of religion that the First Amendment explicitly forbids. I could say all that, and much more. But what would be the point? You don't care. Hey, if the county wants to make everybody accept Jesus as their personal savior in order to be heard by their own public representatives, why not? It's their county, right?

[SayUncle]

Speaking of knee-jerks,

"Sorry, but after five-plus years of exposure to your curdled conception of constitutional liberties and civic responsibility -- and god knows how many megapixels of sincere, patient discussion -- I'm not inclined to give you much more than sarcasm."

Give it a rest, dude. I have no idea what particular incident frosted your nuts (was it the Saturn-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, goatee-sporting, liberal fucks bit?) and don't care. And my view that the constitution means what it says is not a curdled conception.

And, for the record, after your five-plus years of taking my arguments, then presenting them as though I meant something else that is particularly outrageous (like you did above) is disingenuous. But i guess it's easier to refute the words you put in my mouth than the words I actually use.

And find where I intimated anything of the kind about Jesus, etc. Seriously. I'm not a particularly religious person and think there should be separation of church and state. And think that using the bible to justify law is asinine and illegal. And I don't think that religious leaders should be heading up state functions.

And I don't disagree when you say:

"as soon as you start narrowing the form of that recognition you are de facto creating a gap between religions accorded respect by the state and religions not likewise accorded; and that that is exactly the kind of state sponsorship of religion that the First Amendment explicitly forbids"

But the facts are the case law is not murky and it allows such prayers. And as long as prayer is allowed, they can choose who does it. It would have been interesting if the wiccan had challenged that there be no prayer.

[gypsy frocks]

What do you mean, "the facts are"? Can you present any? Are you familiar with Lee v. Weisman? Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe? ACLU v. Blackhorse Pike Regional Board Of Education? The most relevant Supreme Court case here is Marsh v. Chambers, 1983, which upheld the Nebraska legislature's practice of having a paid chaplain who opened each session with a prayer. But key to that decision was this: "The content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where, as here, there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief." The Virginia case clearly violates that tenet. It selects one set of faiths ("Judeo-Christian") as preferred to any other.

Your statement, "And as long as prayer is allowed, they can choose who does it," (is that an exact enough quote for you?) is totally fallacious. The second part in no way follows, logically or legally, from the first part. But no, I don't expect any of that to make any sense to you. Making sense is not your strong suit.

[SayUncle]

Speaking of making sense, key to the decision in Marsh v. Chambers is that it upheld that Nebraska Legislature's chaplaincy practice does not violate the Establishment Clause and that prayer did not either. It also held that the fact the prayers are in the Judeo-Christian tradition do not serve to invalidate Nebraska's practice.

'The second part in no way follows '

Yes, it does. If (as is held by case law) a governmental entity can engage in prayer, then that governmental entity can choose who leads the prayer. I mean, if you think there is some other method to choose who leads the prayer incorporated into case law, by all means tell me what it is. It stands to reason if the Nebraska legislature can engage in the practice that it can, you know, regulate the practice.

'Making sense is not your strong suit.'

Again with the insults? Nice. Your insults are like your arguments, unimaginative, incorrect, and unconvincing.

[gypsy frocks]

"Unconvincing"

I have no idea what your standards of "convincing" are. As I recall, I spent an entire afternoon of my life detailing the definitions and etymological evolution of the words "democracy" and "republic," with abundant supporting materials and citations, and the end of the day you still chose to believe the words meant what you wanted them to mean. So I see no point in continuing this likewise futile effort. The Supreme Court clearly established guidelines for the kind of public prayer acceptable in public meetings -- the prayer cannot be "exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief." You somehow construe that to read, "Any kind of prayer, at the sole discretion of the governing body," which is just about 180 degrees opposite of its meaning.

But arrrrgh, whatever. From now on I'm just going to say, "Thanks for your thoughtful comments," no matter what you post. You can read it as sarcastic or not, I don't care.

[lobbygow]

Since Satan is part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, then I assume I could legitimately invoke the Dark Lord in a prayer to open the session and still be in compliance with the ruling.

After all, as long as I recognize the belief system, does it really matter what side I'm on?

Either ANYBODY has a right to give the invocation as they see fit, regardless of their beliefs, or no invocation should be given. I suppose a razor-thin argument could be made that the invocation is a procedural custom and has nothing to do with the actual business conducted in the court house, but it's too damned close for my comfort.

When it comes to government buildings, there are only two positions to take that don't risk violating the establishment clause IMNSHO:

1) Anything goes
2) Nothing goes

Keeping government buildings and proceedings "sterile" in a religious sense may be attractive, but it's not as easy as it looks. This is especially difficult when you recognize that some folks don't see a distinction between world-view and their chosen faith. For those folks, secularism is a religion.

I'm in favor of anything goes.

A narrow segment of practicing Christians, Jews and Muslims have decided that they are the chosen ones who will turn back the tides of modernity through the purity of their faith. They have hijacked the public debate from moderates who are believer and non-believer alike.

It's time to quit being sissies.

My God is smarter, better-looking and much, much more omnipotent than theirs.

Your God (or lack thereof) is also probably better than theirs. (but not better than mine)

Be loud and proud.

Construct a giant vulva, golden calf or multi-armed goddess, find a street corner, and tell people why they're all going to hell.

It's your right and duty as an American.

[gypsy frocks]

Now we're talking. I've always been of the "anything goes" camp myself. I have no problem with various kinds of religious expression in public life, as long as the expression is open to anyone (and not mandated for anyone). And I think taking that tack makes more sense politically and philosophically than getting into stupid fights about banning Nativity scenes or Christmas trees. Encouraging a diversity of religious expression in the public sphere serves to illustrate how much diversity of belief there is out there, and actually makes it harder for the Dobsons of the world to pretend that there's some kind of national consensus on the issue.

[SayUncle]

'I spent an entire afternoon of my life detailing the definitions and etymological evolution of the words "democracy" and "republic,"'

And you were wrong. You said America was a democracy (which it's not otherwise we'd all vote yay or nay on something) and i said that it was a constitutional republic with a representational government (or representational democracy, if you like).

The Virginia case notes specifically that the policy does not "proselytize or advance any one, or disparage any other, faith or belief,." And the case says that the board may choose who gives the invocation, which is what I said.

'But arrrrgh, whatever. From now on I'm just going to say, "Thanks for your thoughtful comments," no matter what you post. You can read it as sarcastic or not, I don't care.'

Don't worry, after your reaction in this post and the one we discuassed prior, I'm done reading anything you have to say.

Regards,

[gypsy frocks]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments!

[gypsy frocks]

(and I know I'm already violating my pledge but I just can't let this howler go:

You said America was a democracy (which it's not otherwise we'd all vote yay or nay on something) and i said that it was a constitutional republic with a representational government (or representational democracy, if you like).

Oh! It's not a democracy! It's a representational democracy! (think you mean "representative," but whatever)

Oh! It's not a car! It's a Mazda!

Oh! It's not a baseball team! It's the Boston Red Sox!

Oh! It's not a boat! It's a yacht!

Etc.

[dilettantedude]

When it comes to government buildings, there are only two positions to take that don't risk violating the establishment clause IMNSHO:

1) Anything goes
2) Nothing goes

Keeping government buildings and proceedings "sterile" in a religious sense may be attractive, but it's not as easy as it looks. This is especially difficult when you recognize that some folks don't see a distinction between world-view and their chosen faith. For those folks, secularism is a religion.

I'm in favor of anything goes.

Good summary of the options, lobbygow. This was exactly the point I was trying to make during this debate oh-so-many-diatribes ago. I'm in the "anything goes" camp.

I've always been of the "anything goes" camp myself. I have no problem with various kinds of religious expression in public life, as long as the expression is open to anyone (and not mandated for anyone).

Again, exactly the point I was making a few months ago about not just allowing, but encouraging every kind of religious expression possible in public spaces like courthouses and schools, when everyone was moaning about how that would be the end of western civilization.

But they all need to be roughly proportional in presentation, no one should be favored. Maybe a lottery on placement, reshuffled every year or so. It's pretty damn hard in a free society to slam the door in some religious adherent's faces when you are opening it to others.

Kids of hyper-religious nutcases are sheltered all the time from seeing any other views. They are even kept out of our schools to protect them. We need to make it harder for them to avoid the idea that there are other beliefs out there. Our public places participate in that conspiracy of ignorance.

Are we seeing an "evolution" in thought here?

And look, they probably just didn't have any parking for brooms anyway.

[CAFKIA]

Actually, for the sake of accuracy, we should be having this discussion about public prayer as a part of the Judeo/Muslim tradition. If one reads the Sermon on the Mount, one sees that Christ clearly comes out in strong opposition to public prayer. It is therefore idiotic to consider such to be Christian. Saying that it is a few billion times will not make it so. Were I the Wiccan, that is one of the things I would have brought up.

[dilettantedude]

jesus was opposed to any public display of religion or charity, saying prayer and charity should both be done in secret.

so much for the pretensions of so-called christians. i wonder if the wiccan could have gotten away with calling the judge a hypocrite, since jesus teaches us that's what people who pray in public are.

in fact, if you take the position that such people aren't either christian or jewish because of their wholesale violation of jesus' teachings, the wiccan legally, logically and theo-"logically" should have been placed into that whole group as being outside the judaeo-christian prohibition against public prayer.

[mortgage rates]

mortgage rates http://www.mortgagerates-x.com

[generic viagra]

[email protected]

[cheap viagra]

[email protected]

[discount viagra]

[email protected]

[buy generic viagra]

[email protected]

[purchase viagra]

[email protected]

[buy cheap viagra]

[email protected]

[order online viagra]

[email protected]