Yes, Twinkies Lovers, that means you are likely to feel the disaster first and foremost, and there’s no telling how long it will last. It may last forever.
But this time? This time it’s going to be worse. Much worse.
When “normal” returns, it may not be the same “normal” we know and love. Like Bill O’Reilly lamenting the loss of the normal United States populated by Ward, June, Wally and the Beave, the new normal may be damn near unrecognizable.
Fine, so I had to insert a tiny smidgeon of political commentary. Nevertheless, dammit, Hostess is depriving Traditional America of Twinkies on a timetable that resembles greased lightning.
There is no time to waste.
Stop reading this blog immediately and get thee to thy local Twinkies Distribution Point post haste. It is expected that on Monday – just three days hence – the bankruptcy court will let Hostess shut down operations.
At my state-funded college, we grudgingly welcome the Gideon Bible Gauntlet Run a couple of times a year, which I find beyond annoying. I mean to ask these guys next time if they’ve heard of the Establishment Clause/First Amendment/Whole Constitution thingy … and take pictures, too!
Professor Plum
Answer:
Some people love a captive audience. It’s the only way they get attention.
Did you know that the Gideons pass out their New Testaments in different colors depending on the audience? Colleges get green bindings. I had no idea until today that the Gideon Bible covers were the hanky code of evangelical Christians.
The Gideons and other religious groups may not pass out their literature and Bibles on public school campuses attended by minors. They get around this by standing just off campus, or by lobbing Bibles through the open windows of school buses. I kid you not. But college campuses are different.
Here’s what FFRF says about the Gideons on college campuses:
Generally, so long as the Gideons are on sidewalks and public walkways, they may hand out bibles on public college campuses. So if this happens on your campus, check with your Dean of Students’ office or the the college website on policies regulating nonstudent activity on campus. If such activity violates campus regulations or permits are required, report the incident promptly to the appropriate authorities.
I don’t see anything wrong with complaining about harassment from them, or complaining about them blocking a sidewalk, or complaining about feeling intimidated by them.
A creative, activist sort of thing to do when the Gideons visit is to get lots of copies of their Bibles. They’re handing them out for free, so greedily accept them. Go a step further: enthusiastically ask the Gideons if you can help. Then put warning stickers on every Bible you touch, and redistribute them to your classmates. Zazzlesellsseveral of thesestickers, and it’s always possible to print your own what with a pack of labels and the miracles of modern science and all. If the Gideons get wise to you, just stop the recipients of their largess after they’ve accepted their individual Bibles, and ask to see what they got. When the unsuspecting person hands you their new Gideon Bible, slap a sticker on it and hand it back.
I’m not sure whether an upvote or a downvote is due to the University of Louisville Hospital and University Medical Center for its new arrangement with the Catholic Health Initiatives. Financially it will be good. Whether reproductive health care will suffer for it is another issue entirely. There has been drama for about two years over the attempts by the university’s president to merge the public hospital and medical center with CHI. Kentucky’s governor ultimately rejected a year ago saying that “The risks to the public outweigh the potential benefits.” The merger also would have included a Jewish hospital in Louisville. The current arrangement, which is a joint operating agreement and not a merger, apparently preserves the women’s reproductive health care services that CHI would have restricted considerably. Other Catholic hospitals are moving to join operations with public hospitals, including one in Little Rock, Arkansas. It remains to be seen whether women’s reproductive health care will be affected.
Egypt is still busily prosecuting Alber Saber, the guy who was accused of spreading The Innocence of Muslims – that ridiculous movie that may have helped escalate the Benghazi attacks to the level of Major International Incident – and other irreligious stuff on his Facebook page. He faces up to five years in prison for his crime of blasphemy if he is found guilty. According to his defense team, a confession was tortured out of him, his laptop was seized without a warrant, and the police allowed him to be assaulted while in their custody after his arrest in September. The trial is over, and briefs have been submitted to the court. A decision is expected November 28.
In fairness, it’s hardly news that the Catholic bishops in the United States are resisting the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Or that they are dancing jigs over the defeat of Massachusetts’ Death with Dignity Act. After all, it’s not God’s plan that we control our own lives and bodies. In an interview with the National Catholic Register, Richard Doerflinger, who is the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, set out the Catholic strategy for imposing religion on people stuck with getting their health insurance through Catholic employers. Looks like we, in addition to people who don’t think employers should be allowed to impose their religion on employees, ought to take the same page from the Catholic playbook and do the same. Write your congressman, just like Doerflinger suggests.
Sikhs are so peaceful, it’s hard to think their brand of religion is bad, right? Well, not so much. At a Sikh shrine in California, violence erupted this week between two rival groups wanting control of the religious site. These Sikhs have been fighting in court as well as in the streets for control of the place of worship. Lovely.
Mike Huckabee thinks we’re idiots. His appearance on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart Monday night had me seeing red – as in red-state Republican, bloody damn preacher in politics scaring the shit out of those gullible people who think they will burn in hell for not voting the way the Bible tells them to. I ranted about this already,so I won’t repeat myself here. (Shameless plug.)
Federal Courts. Free speech for one group equates free speech for all, they said when the Islamophobic American Freedom Defense Initiative sued to get pro-Christian, pro-Israel, Anti-Islam ads put on buses in D.C. and New York. The ads are now running on Chicago buses, and the Southern Poverty Law Center has noted the ad campaign in its Hatewatch Headlines. AFDI is headed by Pam Geller, who fervently believes Barack Obama is beholden to his Islamic overlords and is the love child of Malcolm X. Yes, it’s best we know who the hate groups are, no matter who they hate, than to have them work in secret where we can’t see them.
And, no, it’s not law-related, but did you guys see the Washington post article about The Friendly Atheist Hemant Mehta and teenage atheist hero Jessica Ahlquist at Skepticon? The more coverage atheists and atheism get in the mainstream popular media for good stuff, the better!
I’m just going to use this graphic for them from now on. They’ve earned it.
If I could adorn it with sparkly glitter and blinky neon lights without risking an epileptic seizure or a migraine, I’d probably do it.
Yesterday, FFRF sued the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. No shit. And yes, they sued because the IRS won’t friggin’ enforce the rule about churches electioneering. Basically, this is a claim of a sort of nonfeasance or dereliction of duty, something that isn’t very common. By not doing his job – by not enforcing the law – FFRF says that the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service has violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution.
FFRF wants a declaratory judgment against the Commissioner – in other words, a judgment that says that the Commissioner has done wrong. It has asked for an injunction against the Commissioner’s refusal to enforce the law, which is a convoluted way of saying that it wants the court to issue an order requiring the Commissioner to enforce the law. (I know – why couldn’t they just say that?) FFRF also wants the court to order the Commissioner of the IRS to designate someone as a high-level official who can take the complaints from IRS Form 13909 and investigate them.
The lawsuit asserts that under the administration of Commissioner Shulman, the Internal Revenue Service, under the direction of the IRS “has followed and continues to follow a policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) against churches and other religious organizations.” You tell ’em, FFRF!
And the complaint continues: “As a result, in recent years, churches and religious organizations have been blatantly and deliberately flaunting the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3), including during the presidential election year of 2012.” Ya think? Just to be certain that the court is aware of the kinds of things that are going on, FFRF lists a few of them:
Illinois Bishop Daniel Jenky required that a partisan letter be read by every celebrating priest in the diocese to congregants the weekend before the recent Presidential election;
On October 7, 2012, more than 1500 clergy, in a deliberate and coordinated display of noncompliance with the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3), including prominent megachurches, flagrantly violated the law against churches electioneering;
The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, one of the most prominent and respected religious ministries in the country, ran blatantly partisan full-page ads in October of 2012 in the Wisconsin State Journal;
Just prior to the November 6, 2012 election, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association also ran blatantly partisan ads in the the New York Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and more than a dozen national and battle ground state newspapers
The Association also published expressly partisanship on its website just prior to the election;
Open and notorious violations of the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) by churches and other religious organizations have been occurring since at least 2008, with churches recording their own partisan activities and sending the evidence to the IRS.
Did you catch that last bit? In case you hadn’t heard, the churches are violating the law and taunting the IRS by sending proof of their blatant disregard for the law to the IRS themselves! And the IRS sits there with its thumb up its ass and does nothing but admire the wallpaper.
Understandably, FFRF, which itself is a 501(c)(3) organization, is somewhat miffed by this, and in the lawsuit it said so. Why does FFRF have to obey the law but these religious organizations do not? This is religious discrimination. Selective non-enforcement of the law based on religious criteria violates the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, and, to add insult to injury,
The preferential tax-exemption that churches and other religious organizations obtain, despite noncompliance with electioneering restrictions, amounts to more than $100,000,000,000 annually in tax-free contributions made to churches and religious organizations in the United States.
I don’t know how or where FFRF came up with that number, but if it’s true, that’s about thirty-five billion – with a B – dollars in lost tax revenue. Money that we owe China. Money that would sure help with deficit reduction.
FFRF wants a level playing field and an end to the preferential treatment. It demands that the law is enforced. By not enforcing the law with respect to religious institutions, the government is effectively giving religion a $35,000,000,000 tax subsidy. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is establishment of religion.
A private attorney, Richard Bolton, is representing FFRF on this one. Bolton is a respected civil rights lawyer in Madison, Wisconsin, where FFRF is located. I would imagine he’s going to be getting a lot of hate mail in the near future, so let’s give him some love, shall we? Thanksgiving is coming next week, and he’s someone we might just want to thank.
You can read FFRF’s own press release and the complaint against the IRS on the FFRF website. If you aren’t a member of FFRF already, it’s time to join. Even if you don’t join, please donate. FFRF isn’t electioneering, so contributions to it will remain tax-deductible. The Freedom From Religion Foundation works tirelessly to protect our rights. They deserve some love, too.
Mike Huckabee was on the Daily Show again last night. He’s hawking his new book, but naturally he didn’t much talk about his book.
“Why does anybody have to be automatically anything other than what they truly believe?” Huckabee asked Stewart in the first part of the interview (6:14). At that point, he was talking about letting black conservatives be conservative without calling them “pawns,” or worse. A good question, which begs the question put to him in the second segment of the interview: why do Christians who don’t believe what their fundamentalist preachers tell them to believe have to be consigned to the fires of hell?
Yes, the second segment of the interview is what’s really important.
Stewart started the second segment by asking, “When [conservatives] keep demonizing these groups, whether it be single women, black people, illegal immigrants, it makes it impossible to work with them as a collaboration. Why would you collaborate with evil people? And when you convince them that they’re evil, why work with them?”
Unfortunately, this question never got answered. Huckabee denied demonizing these people, and truthfully, he probably has not demonized most of them himself. His network and his party certainly have, though he won’t speak for either of those entities. Now, Huckabee has demonized the natures of gay people, but Stewart did not take him to task for that.
Instead, Stewart segued into an abbreviated version of the despicable two-minute commercial Huckabee narrated for the Christian Right just before the election. You know the one.
In it, Huckabee quotes Psalm 127:1 and says that “unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.” He then calls certain things “not negotiable:”
The right to life from conception to natural death
Marriage should be reinforced, not be defined
It is an egregious violation of our cherished principle of religious liberty for the government to force the church to buy the kind of insurance that leads to the taking of innocent human life
Against a backdrop of flames, Rev. Huckabee goes on to say that “Your vote will be recorded for eternity.” He asks, “Will you vote the values that will stand the test of fire?”
This commercial is so incredibly offensive on so many levels my stomach still churns with anger to watch it, and the election is over and done with.
Huckabee actually claimed that this commercial did not attempt to send the message that if Christians voted for the Democrats they would go to hell – unless they were biblically illiterate. I really cannot imagine how that wasn’t the message, since I don’t even believe in hell and that’s the clear message I got from it – and I’ve read and studied the Bible extensively. “Oh, no!” exclaims Huckabee. “If they know 1 Corinthians 10, they will know!” Then he claimed that 1 Corinthians 10 was about being tested in the fires of a forge, and coming out stronger or some such.
For the biblically illiterate, let me explain 1 Corinthians 10. There is not one word about forges or fire. It’s all about not worshipping false gods and not participating in idolatry. We all know that since there is only one true god, so there can’t be any other gods, no matter how true their own believers believe them to be, and no matter how false those idolaters believe the one true god to be. Frankly, the arrogance of the “one true god” thing just staggers me, especially when one considers that the adherents of the Abrahamic religions have no better proof of their god than the adherents of any other religion.
But let’s look at 1 Corinthians 10:29, which asks, “Why should my liberty be judged by someone else’s conscience?”
Why, indeed, Reverend Huckabee? Why should my freedom be judged by your conscience? You arrogant twit, I can cherry-pick Bible verses just as well as you can.
I think the Good Reverend Huckabee was actually referring to 1 Corinthians 3:13, which more or less says what Huckabee claimed this commercial meant to say, just without the forge part. Because that’s totally not in there. And the part about judgement day, and therefore hell, definitely is in that particular passage.
Again, this is what pisses me off about Christians. They want to spew their Bible at me, but then I have to correct them – even the supposedly learned ones – because they don’t get it right. If they want to beat me up with their scripture, they should at least know their stupid scripture.
Of course, maybe he really meant 1 Peter 1:7, or 2 Peter 3:7, or some other passage that refers to fire but not hell, even though most of the passages I find pretty much equate testing by fire with the Judgment Day and hell. So Huckabee’s protests that the reference to fire doesn’t also refer to Hell or Judgment hold about as much water as that colander I used to strain my spaghetti last night.
Let’s examine the the three points of that disgusting commercial.
The right to life from conception to natural death
Nowhere in the Bible does any religious authority, real or imagined, claim that life begins at the moment of conception. I’d cite verses where it says so, but there aren’t any.
Let’s face it: The Biblical God is not pro-life. He advocates and permits child murder, infanticide, child abuse, and, yes, abortion. Fundamentalist Christians rely on such passages as “thou shall not kill” Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17 (one of the commandments), and “If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no misfortune follow, he shall be surely punished according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.And if any misfortune follow, then thou shalt give life for life,eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” Exodus 21:22-24. Although the Exodus passage seems to be a favorite among the anti-choice crowd, I would point out that the harm mentioned in it is harm to the woman, not to the aborted or miscarried fetus.
God’s favored prophets prayed for abortions. Don’t believe me? Read Hosea 9:11-16. This same favored prophet also advocated ripping the fetuses out of the wombs of pregnant women in Hosea 13:16, something the God-favored King Menahem of the Israelites proudly did in 2 Kings 15:16, too. There’s even a ritual to induce an abortion in a faithless wife in Numbers 5:21 (presumably done instead of stoning her, although when stoning and when abortion is the proper course of action, the Bible doesn’t say).
So God is definitely not pro-life, at least for fetuses. But what about hastening death? Apparently the fundamentalist Christians also don’t like euthanasia, mercy-killing, or assisted suicide, either. They want people to suffer. This is where compassion gets thrown to the wind by these Christians. Suicide is tantamount to murder, in their eyes.
The Bible reports several suicides (Ahithophel; Saul and his armor-bearer; Samson; Zimri, who was king of Israel for only seven days; and Judas Iscariot) and men who want to be stricken dead (Moses, the prophet Elijah, and Jonah – twice) but nowhere in the Bible does it condemn them for that. The Bible also reports mercy killings, without reference to judgment, except in the case of the Amalekite who lied to David about killing Saul. Saul himself was not condemned for asking to die. Abimelech begged his armor-carrying servant to kill him in Judges 9:52-54, because he lost a battle and could not bear the indignity of his inevitable murder at the hands of (gasp!) women. There was no judgment attached to Abimelech’s death.
So, there does not seem to be a problem with euthanasia, either. Huckabee’s first point fails, on both counts.
Marriage should be reinforced, not be defined
This one is so easy it’s almost a no-brainer. I cannot grasp why these wackjob Christians think that the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Jon Stewart jumped on this pretty fast, pointing out that the biblical definition of marriage is polygamy. Although Huckabee tried to say it isn’t, he cited no biblical authority for his position other than the Adam and Eve story. Lots of biblical marriages came after that one. Furthermore, it’s not real clear that Adam and Eve ever actually tied the knot. They sort of hooked up because of the dearth of others of their same species to choose from, and apparently shacked up, never going that extra step of committing to each other monogamously. They had no other options but bestiality.
So it stands to reason that yes, marriage could stand to be defined. But to say it’s biblical marriage really leaves the door wide open.
Because if you let your servant get married, and he leaves your employment, his wife and children are yours unless the servant agrees to stay and have his ear bored through with an awl. (Exodus 21:6) I’m not clear whether this means the servant’s earlobe gets pierced, or if his eardrum gets pierced. Either way, it’s pretty barbaric. But, that’s one definition of Biblical marriage.
Exodus 21:10 reminds men who take second wives that they can’t neglect the first one. Oops, Mr. Huckabee. Guess there’s a new definition of biblical marriage implied here.
Deuteronomy 22 is a great place to look for definitions of marriage. I like the one where the guy marries the woman and decides he doesn’t like her. If her father can’t then produce bloody sheets proving that she was a virgin at the time of the wedding, well, she gets stoned to death. What a sweet marriage that makes.
One of my favorite definitions of marriage is the rapist and his virgin victim. Yeah, Deuteronomy 22:28-30 is all about that.
Now, Paul is not real keen on marriage at all. Despite the fact that the species will disappear without it, sex is gross, and women are … well, Paul’s misogyny is another issue altogether. Paul thought everyone ought to have a spouse, though, if they really want sex, whether or not he could fathom why they’d want it. My guess is that Paul was so undesirable he never got laid, and therefore had no idea what he was missing.
And that doesn’t count all the various marriages in the Bible that involved multiple wives, concubines, and slaves. Heck, Abraham had a wife (Sarah), his wife’s slave (Hagar), another wife (Keturah), and an unknown number of secondary wives.
Solomon had 700 wives and 300 secondary wives, in addition to the Queen of Sheba. That’s 1001, for those of you who aren’t good with math.
And the list goes on.
It is an egregious violation of our cherished principle of religious liberty for the government to force the church to buy the kind of insurance that leads to the taking of innocent human life.
Right. Do I really have to explain this?
Most people in the United States who are lucky enough to have health insurance coverage have it because their employer provides it. If their employer did not provide it, health insurance would be prohibitively expensive. Therefore, people are generally forced to accept whatever health insurance is offered through work, unless they are wealthy enough to afford it on their own – which most people are not.
Limiting your employee’s health insurance options based on your own religious beliefs, whether or not your employee shares your religious beliefs, is totally not forcing your religion on them. (/Sarcasm)
Until there is a single-payer system, or until health insurance is decoupled from employment and made affordable, employers are in a position to unfairly force their religious beliefs on their employees.
It is an egregious violation of our cherished principle of religious liberty for anyone to limit our access to health care based on religious beliefs we do not hold. If the government permits this, the government is complicit in the establishment of religion.
Therefore…
Stewart nailed him on the thinly disguised guilt trip the Huckster attempted to foist on good believing Christians. The commercial was pro-life and homophobic, and it essentially told Christian voters, with the appropriate imagery of their religion of intimidation and threat, that if they were not also pro-life and homophobic, they would burn for all eternity. Sweet message, that.
Among the most disturbing things about these Christians who want to impose their Bible on the rest of us are:
For a number of reasons, foremost among them its bizarre contradictions, we don’t believe their Bible to be reliable, and therefore object to basing our laws on it;
Their Bible contravenes proven science;
We do not agree that some of the crazy shit they think is good is actually, well, good;
As a foundational document, their Bible is inconsistent, violent, bigoted, misogynistic, and homicidal, and none of those things are acceptable in modern society;
If they cherry-pick only the “good parts” of the Bible to apply to modern life, we have to question why, if so much of it is dispensable, they consider it to be a legitimate authority;
Why they think it is acceptable to force their dogma on people who do not accept their dogma.
Dissenting minorities and minorities representing different demographics will always need protection from the will of the majority. And right now the majority seem to be batshit Christians, who want to impose their will on the rest of us.
Here’s my roundup of legal machinations over the past week. No, I haven’t listed everything, and yes, I may have missed something important. Please leave comments on other events involving the law and secularism that you consider noteworthy.
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Despite the IRS suspension of the egregious political activity by 501(c)(3) tax-exempt religious organizations, FFRF decided this past week to take on the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association for its political ad that essentially endorsed Mitt Romney for President. Billy Graham reportedly told Romney that he would support the Republican candidate for President because he would support the “biblical definition of marriage.” Read FFRF’s letter to the Director of Exempt Organizations Examinations (DEOE), in which Annie Laurie Gaylor reminds us, once again, that she rocks.
As I mentioned in my earlier post today, the Director of Exempt Organizations Examinations is a high-ranking official, one level removed from the Secretary of the Treasury, and thus under the current Treasury Department organizational structure, is the correct person to determine whether an investigation is necessary. There were several people of that rank and authority before the 1998 bureaucratic restructuring.
Voters in Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota
Tuesday was a great day for same-sex marriage ballot measures. State by state, it’s slowly happening. I’ve never seen any objection other than those based on religion, so despite the “why do I care” attitude of some atheists, I feel strongly that as secular humanists we should co-own this issue with our LGBTQ friends. We’ve shared their closets all these years, after all. Ballot measures addressing the issue were voted on by citizens of four states Tuesday, and all of them passed handily. Nine states and D.C. now have no-holds-barred same-sex marriage, which confers all rights to homosexual couples that heterosexual couples enjoy. Another dozen states are almost there, giving same-sex couples almost all the rights of heterosexual couples through domestic partnerships and civil unions.
Kansas Board of Education
They’re at it again, that quirky group of deep thinkers. Global climate change is the current target of the anti-scientists on the Kansas Board of Education.
Adherents of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster may recall that it was an intelligent design curriculum proposed by the Kansas Board of Education that prompted FSM Prophet Bobby Henderson’s letter, the erudite lyricism and persuasive argument of which caused the noodly goodness of Pastafarianism to explode across the globe. I can’t wait to see what creatively crafted new religion comes out of this train wreck.
Followers of the Friendly Atheist may remember that a month ago Hemant Mehta interviewed Jack Wu and concluded, “If there’s anything we ought to take away from this, it’s that Wu shows how anyone can run for office.” This statement proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Hemant can find something nice to say about absolutely anyone.
Fortunately, <a href=”https://www.cjonline.com/article/20121106/NEWS/311069915>Jack Wu was overwhelmingly defeated.
Wu’s politics are completely focused on Biblical teachings. Kansas Governor Sam Brownback is too liberal for Jack Wu – Wu has said that Brownback, famous for uber-conservatism, just isn’t anti-abortion enough. Since Brownback has promised to sign any anti-abortion measure to cross his desk whether he’s actually read it or not, one must wonder exactly what Wu expects of Guv’nor Sam.
Florida Man
During my misspent youth, which even at my advanced age is still not over and done with, I spent way too much time on Fark.com. The “Florida” tag was always a warning that a stupid people/stupid government story was about to happen, and I’d click on it with glee, glad that there was one place in the country that might, occasionally, top the stupidity I saw on a daily basis right here at home.
On election night, Florida experienced at least a partial redemption.
In an outstanding FU to those who would merge church and state, Florida voters squelched Amendment 8, one of 11 proposed constitutional amendments on Florida’s ballot this election season. Amendment 8, humorously titled the “Florida Religious Freedom Amendment,” would have repealed a provision in the Florida Constitution that prohibits using state revenue “directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.” That’s right: it would have directed taxpayers’ dollars to support religious institutions.
Brave Atheists in Egypt
As bad as we might think we have it in the Bible Belt and other red states, there are places where religion is even more suffocating. Take Egypt, where 95% of the population is Muslim. There are still very quiet pockets of non-believers who dare to meet to discuss religion, despite the arrest last month of Alber Saber, a 27-year old who was physically attacked in the street because of irreligious statements appearing on his Facebook page. Egypt does not have freedom of belief, and no matter how ludicrous it seems, the Egyptian courts can prosecute and punish someone who is incapable of believing in a god.
The bravery of the small groups who continue to manage to meet and discuss their philosophy, beliefs, and iconoclastic understanding of the world cannot be adequately described. I don’t know that I would be brave enough to defy courts and criminal punishment to talk about my lack of belief.
Alber Saber’s blasphemy trial resumes next week.
Spain’s Constitutional Court
In 2005 Spain’s Socialist-dominated Cortes Generales (parliament) passed a same-sex marriage bill over the strenuous objections of the conservative Popular Party. Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero signed it into law, making Spain the third country in the world – the Netherlands and Belgium had been first and second – to legalize same-sex marriage. When he left office last year amid Spain’s economic woes, Zapatero forthrightly stated that the same-sex marriage law was his proudest achievement in office.
The Popular Party appealed to the Constitutional Court, the highest court in Spain, which agreed to hear the case. The Catholic Church, led by the scions of that compassionate humanist Torquemada, unsurprisingly sided with the conservative challengers.
This is excellent news for tens of thousands of same-sex couples who have tied the knot in the intervening years. While the court challenge wended its way to a decision, same-sex couples married, adopted children, and created families. Imagine the chaotic limbo those families might have endured with a different decision.
A bit of background: I practiced in juvenile court for fifteen years before I burned out completely on the daily dose of unthinkable child abuse and neglect. Fuqua’s stupidity staggered me. This man was running for re-election, and he actually thought it was a good idea 1) to pass a law that “wouldn’t be enforced” and 2) give parents who murder their children a defense of justifiable infanticide. I can hear it now: “Your Honor, I know he was only six months old, but he wouldn’t stop crying so beating him to death just made sense,” and “Your Honor, she was dating that boy I didn’t like, and she climbed out of her bedroom window to go see him. It was the second time this month, so I had no choice but to kill her.” Those scenarios happen already with despicable regularity. Can you imagine how much more prevalent child abuse would be if it were legally acceptable?
These are the same people who have to have a vindictive God to give them morals. All three of these assclowns lost their races Tuesday.
Right out of the gate, my first post ever on WWJTD, and the next thing I know I’m seeing my chosen topic everyfreakingwhere on the Interwebz, and my information was … not as good as I thought it was. Shit. I’m embarrassed. This had better not be a harbinger of things to come, I mutter darkly to anyone in earshot.
So, here’s the down-low. In 2007, the pastor of the Living Word Christian Center in Minnesota had announced – from the pulpit – his endorsement of Republican Michele Bachmann for her reelection to the US House of Representatives. This was a clear violation of 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3), the Internal Revenue Code that allows exemptions from tax on certain non-profit corporations, trusts, and certain other entities.
Some gung-ho atheist activist (or maybe it was just somebody who detested Michele Bachmann on general principles; I hear such folks are common in certain circles) complained to the IRS. The Director of Exempt Organizations, Examination (DEOE) sent a notice to the church that it was initiating an investigation. According to the church, that office was not high-ranking enough to initiate the investigation, so when the inevitable administrative summons came, it refused to comply. Naturally, the IRS took the church to court to force compliance with the summons.
Special requirements must be met to investigate a church for tax noncompliance. The Church Audit Procedures Act, found at §7611 of the Internal Revenue Code, is intended to keep the government out of church affairs as much as possible. The Act allows a church inquiry when “an appropriate high-level Treasury official reasonably believes” that the church is no longer in compliance with the requirements of 501(c)(3). It defines “appropriate high-level Treasury official” as “the Secretary of the Treasury or any delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury whose rank is no lower than that of a principal Internal Revenue officer for an internal revenue region.” The regional commissioner, who this definition referred to, was one level removed from the Commissioner of the IRS.
The catch was this: in 1998 the IRS eliminated the position of the Regional Commissioner, which was the “principal Internal Revenue Officer for an internal revenue region.” In fact, the IRS did away with regions altogether, and restructured its chain of command by subject rather than by geographic area. Since the position of “principal Revenue Officer for an internal revenue region” no longer existed, and Congress did not amend the definition of “appropriate high-level treasury official” in the Church Audit Procedures Act, there was no one authorized by the statute besides the Secretary of the Treasury who could make the “reasonable belief” determination and launch an investigation of a church for not adhering to 501(c)(3) requirements. The DEOE, which had made the “reasonable belief” finding and launched the investigation into the Living Word Christian Center, was four levels below the IRS Commissioner, and therefore not ranked equivalent to the former position of Regional Commissioner.
With this opinion in one single federal District Court in one single state, IRS investigations of churches came to an inglorious screeching halt. The purpose of the Church Audit Procedures Act was more than fulfilled: government basically could no longer touch churches, even when they were blatantly violating the tax code. Churches are free to meddle in government, without repercussion, at least until the definition of “appropriate high-level Treasury official” is amended, or until the position of Regional Commissioner is reinstated.
I checked the Code of Federal Regulations. Nope, the masses blogging and reporting about this matter over the last week are right: the regulation intended to help the IRS enjoin flagrant political activity by 501(c)(3) organizations has not been updated since December 1995. Although some religious news sources advise caution, other religious news outlets celebrate, since that means church can invade the state, but the state cannot invade the church. An attempt to update it was made in 2009, after a decision by the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. noted the problem, too, but despite a public hearing having been held on the matter, nothing has yet been done. That may be because Congress will have to act, and by the time of the public hearing on the matter in January 2010, the Republicans had retaken the U.S. House of Representatives, the Tea Party held sway over all political decisions, and progressive government essentially ground to a halt.
But the ruling in the Minnesota case only applies to proceedings to enforce a summons issued by the IRS, not to actual enforcement of the law, so presumably there’s some other way to address the issue. Presumably. Maybe. If there is, I can’t find it. Shit.
What gets me is the IRS guy I spoke with while writing my piece last week told me that the IRS is still taking complaints about political over-reaching by churches. He directed me to the appropriate form, and he said that it definitely should be filed. When I started stumbling across article after blog post after news item about this, I had to wonder about the disconnect. Now, after actually researching the history of the problem, it seems ludicrous to me that Tim Geithner or any Treasury official ranked one level below him is going to bother themselves with hundreds of complaints about churches. In fact, it seems ludicrous that any Treasury official ranked that high would. Maybe that’s why only one church has ever had its tax-exempt status yanked, ever. Ever.
Now I’m mad.
Their own hero said it.
How the hell is it that we’re supposed to have a separation of church and state, but that separation can only go one way? Government has to keep out of church business – and I agree that it should, unless the church is violating the law. But when the church gets all up the the government’s business, and I find out that the government has essentially hamstrung itself so that it can’t take remedial action, my blood boils.
I live in one of the most Christian-dominated states in the U.S. If we are to trust the numbers collected by the Huffington Post, though, probably only half of Americans are strong Christians. That leaves the other half of us, who aren’t riding the Jesus Train and think we ought not to have a theocracy, wondering why churches are allowed to have such strong voices, and why they are allowed to drown out the other half of us.
Then I consider when this happened. The decision by the Minnesota District Courtwas issued January 30, 2008, just 15 days after Barack Obama was sworn in as President. And something started to be done by the summer of 2008, but federal rule-making takes a long time. And by the time it came down to it, Congress was cram-packed full of tea-partying wackjobs and I guess the Treasury Department was a bit sidetracked, what with the biggest economic crisis in a century enjoying prominent headlines and the Treasury Department embroiled in a little problem having to do with things like debt ceilings and such.
Capital punishment will show the little buggers how to act. And remember, boys and girls: we don’t hit.
Why do we have laws that aren’t enforced? Before you think this is a rhetorical question, consider the likes of Charlie Fuqua, an incumbent Republican candidate for the state legislature from my own home state, who thinks we ought to pass a law permitting parents to kill their disobedient children. After all, the Bible says it’s fine. And we won’t really enforce it, just hang it over the little darlings’ heads until they stop behaving like mini-monsters.
Then there’s the notorious Billy Graham ad. Fortunately, FFRF is all over that one. OF course, the letter Annie Laurie Gaylor sent to the IRS demanding an investigation was sent to the DEOE – yes, the same official the Minnesota District Court said wasn’t high-ranking enough – so it may not go anywhere unless it gets kicked up the chain of command.
But the media is reporting on it, supplying the quotes from church leaders, photos of church marquees, and reports or violations that the IRS will need if it ever gets its administrative ass in gear and decides to institute Regional Commissioners or persuade Congress to correct the structural issues based on the Treasury Department’s structural reorganization.
As for those of us who feel strongly that churches do not speak for us and should stay out of politics, we can still form brigades waving stacks of Form 13909, filling them out and submitting them to the IRS in hopes that the government will actually get around to enforcing the law.
Sure, the First Amendment stands for free speech, but it also stands for separation of church and state.
Frankly, it wouldn’t be such a bad thing if all churches paid taxes. Render unto Caesar and all that, you know.
Reader questions are edited to eliminate references to specific people and places, unless there’s a need to call out the cavalry. If you see something here that almost resembles your question, but your main concern isn’t addressed, go ahead and ask again in the comments. I’ll do my best to respond.
Reader Question:
I teach at a large, publicly-funded community college. Here’s an item I thought you might have an opinion on:
Since we’re state-supported, is this sort of thing even legal?
Professor Plum
Answer:
Students are allowed to form their own groups on campus, and do. It’s how they find like-minded people, and attract like-minded new friends. Fraternities, Chess Clubs, Latin clubs, political clubs, Secular Student Alliances, student religious clubs.
This group is a little different in that it apparently is an alliance that stretches across several campuses in the area. But just like the Secular Student Alliance, there is nothing that prevents a group of interested students from forming a chapter on every campus within reach.
At the high school level, the Equal Access Act allows student-led groups to form for political, religious, philosophical, or other reasons. This act was spearheaded by religious organizations that wanted to insert prayer in school, and the happy result is that secular students, gay students, and other social minorities benefit from it. The Equal Access Act says:
It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.
Of course, the act says a whole lot more, but you get the gist.
The Equal Access Act does not apply to colleges. Unlike tax-supported high schools, there are no free colleges, and college attendance is not compulsory. Most, if not all, colleges collect an “activities fee” from every enrolled student that helps to support student-run organizations like the college-level Secular Student Alliance, Gay-Straight Alliance, Jewish Student Union, Japanese Club, Chess Club, Baptist Student Union, etc. Normally, these resources – including funds, meeting rooms, and photocopying costs – are made available to student organizations based on very general criteria.
There’s a U.S. Supreme Court case that says it’s okay for religious students to organize on campus and use campus resources. It came about when a religious student club at the University of Virginia (UVA) wanted to print its magazine with university resources. UVA said that it couldn’t permit the religious publication because government money, as well as student activities fees, would pay for the printing, and to print the religious publication would violate the Establishment Clause. Other, non-religious groups used those resources regularly. The religious student organization sued. The Supreme Court said that to deny the religious student group access to funds available to other student publications violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The university could not select which organization could or could not use the resources based on the content of the publication.
So, Professor Plum, as long as the college where you work allows all student-organized groups to use the same resources, there’s not a problem.
The website for the group in the photo indicates that this group is a student-run organization that reaches across several local campuses. There is nothing to prevent similar student groups on multiple campuses from joining together. Fraternities have always done this – that’s how there’s a Sigma Chi or a Tri-Delt at so many different colleges. They can even have a national organization that sets out guidelines and provides some funding – just like the Secular Student Alliance does.
What they cannot do is harass people, preach to captive audiences, or offer free cheese dip without decent chips. This group apparently wants people to pour cheese dip on its Bible Study handouts since it fails to offer tortilla chips in its ad. If the cheese dip is any good, this may be the highest and best use of said handouts.
It’s no secret that The Alchemist, by Paulo Coelho, is one of my favorite books. I’m leading the discussion in my book club this month, and The Alchemist is the book we’re discussing. I feel fortunate, but overwhelmed at the same time.
I’ve re-read the book during the past week to get ready for the book club discussion. Reader’s Guides are readily available for The Alchemist. The tenth anniversary edition, which I have, contains one after the epilogue. Its discussion topics seem so obvious to me. There is so much more to this book than those canned study guide questions point out.
For instance, there are two different types of alchemy: scientific alchemy and spiritual alchemy. While the gold that scientific alchemy yields is tempting, Coelho’s beautiful fable teaches us that the spiritual aspect of alchemy is the important one. The tale of Santiago the shepherd boy underscores that without achieving the Master Work of spiritual alchemy, no one can attain the Magnum Opus of scientific alchemy. The discussion of both types of alchemy is a discussion of the book itself, as well as a philosophical discussion that may never end.
Santiago’s quest for his Personal Legend is full of lessons. Santiago’s wisdom, and the wisdom of the people he meets in his travels, must have been sound bites that Coelho collected for years then wove seamlessly into this tale. All of Coelho’s books seem that way, though. But the wisdom and joy of The Alchemist makes it the only one of Coelho’s books that literally makes me cry.
Each time I’ve read this book I’ve cried, and each time I’ve cried at the same point. For me, the climax of the book comes twice. The first is not when Santiago finds the physical treasure of his dream, but when he first lays eyes on what fabulous wonders men can achieve. Yes, this is when I cry, and I’m crying with the profound joy the book has given me.
At the moment when Santiago thinks he should find his treasure, he is attacked by several refugees from the tribal wars he has dodged all across the Sahara. One attacker announces that it is stupid to cross a desert to look for buried treasure just because of a recurring dream. The attacker doesn’t know it, but Santiago has done exactly that, and is at the point of realizing that dream when he is beaten bloody and left nearly dead by these attackers. As outside observers we readers laugh, knowing that whether or not Santiago finds his material wealth in the desert, his journeys have resulted in a spiritual wealth beyond most people’s imagining. He has learned that if he wants to, he can become the wind.
Coelho uses phrases and terms of his own making, but they are philosophical terms necessary to understanding the spiritual alchemy he presents in his book. The Soul of the World, the hand that wrote all, the Language of the World, and one’s Personal Legend are concepts Coelho deftly teaches us with this story of a shepherd’s quest, undertaken because of a recurring dream. Without initially understanding those terms, though, we struggle along with Santiago to grasp the concepts of spiritual alchemy.
Fear hampers our quests for our Personal Legends. The fear presents itself in different ways. First, it is a fear of leaving the familiar comforts of what we know to go in pursuit of a dream. But when we take those first few tentative steps toward our dream, beginner’s luck encourages us to keep pursuing the dream. Eventually, though, our initial success creates another fear within us. We have achieved so much. No, it’s not what we set out to achieve, but it is enough. We can die happy because we got this far and we are comfortable. But, if we listen to our hearts, we know that this temptation to settle for less than our Personal Legend is really a fear: a fear that we have had so much success that we are bound to fail soon.
The fear of failure prevents many people from realizing their Personal Legends. Settling for “good enough,” these people stop listening to their hearts and listen instead to the comforts of having come this far and achieved this much. They feel blessed to have done so much; to try to do more tempts fate, does it not?
Yes, it does.
That’s part of the pursuit of the Personal Legend, though. We aren’t rewarded with the realization of that legend unless we show that we have truly learned the lessons along the way to achieving it. Proving that we’ve learned the lessons means we have to be challenged, and the challenges aren’t supposed to be easy. If we want something enough, if our goal is our dream, and our dream is our Personal Legend, the path gets harder, not easier, the closer we get. Nevertheless, if we step carefully and read the omens sent to us, we will achieve success. We will recognize and live our Personal Legends.
I’m making four presentations to make on this book this month. In each, I want to examine a portion of the story, and a portion of the philosophy of spiritual alchemy. I don’t know if I can limit myself to just four!
I’ve come up with a list of omens Santiago notices in his adventures. Some of them have layers of meaning. I want to talk about them.
Throughout the book, Coelho sprinkled concepts from the three Abrahamic religions. I want to talk about each, yet I know that those in my audience who know me not to be a follower of this religious tradition will want time to challenge me on my interpretation, and will want to offer their own. There must be time for that.
There are mystical elements that defy being categorized with something else, so must be treated separately.
Each major character, plus a couple of minor ones, have wisdom to share. I want to examine their profound observations – ALL of them!
Then there are the literary aspects of the book. Coelho’s writing style, the format of the story, foreshadowing and other literary devices, character development . . . I’m babbling already and I haven’t even begun my presentation.
And then there is alchemy, both scientific and spiritual, to tackle. To be fair to each, they should be dealt with separately, then addressed together so as to underscore the similarities. There are specific alchemists mentioned in the book whose biographies might be interesting to my audience, yet I fear boring the masses with my enthusiasm.
But wait: Santiago’s strengths were his courage to do what he wanted, and his enthusiasm in the process.
His strengths were what enabled him to become the wind.
So, I’ve got my first legal question to answer for WWJTD.
Question:
Our children, Chris and Meg, are participating in a choir at school. All the songs in their upcoming recital are religious songs. I want to complain and raise a huge stink, get the media involved, and sue, but my wife, Lois, urges caution; she does not want undue negative attention focused on the kids. The kids don’t really want me to say anything, either, but they complain daily about how stupid the songs are. The bottom line, though, is that all of us really, really object to the kids being required to sing religious songs in choir. What should we do?
Peter
Answer:
Yep, this could be bad.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation says this is the single most frequent complaint they hear. It seems that school choir directors often come from church choirs, and forget that they need to separate the two. The problem is especially troublesome around Christmas and Easter.
It’s time for Peter and Lois to have a talk with the choir teacher. There are some facts they need to find out before complaining. They shouldn’t mention an objection to religious music right off the bat, but find out why religious music has been chosen.
Religious vs. educational value: If this choir is introducing the children to the giants of classical composition like Brahms and Handel, then remember that most of that music is religious, but has educational value as well. Unless the songs are being sung over and over for a recital, and only religious songs have been chosen, it is not unreasonable to expose music students to them. We want our children, especially those who are serious about music, to know music history. By necessity, that includes grand chorales with religious themes. It also includes music that is entirely secular. There should be a balance of the two.
Is the concert or recital intended for a religious holiday? The name of the recital or performance may be a dead giveaway here. Christmas carols, especially, have religious content, but there are other holiday songs that are entirely secular. There is no reason why some of those songs can’t also be included – and should be included, if for no other reason than to underscore that the reason for the season isn’t just Jesus. If the purpose of the concert is to highlight songs of different religious traditions, then consider that indoctrination might not be happening. Five choruses of “Jingle Bells” is much less worrisome than five choruses of “O Holy Night.” Now, if the “Dreidel Song” and the Kwanzaa Song” are included, as is “Up on the Rooftop,” there’s probably a good mix of traditions that takes the concert out of being just religious in nature. If not, it’s necessary to demand that the school do better about teaching all traditions.
How old are the children singing? The ability of a second-grader to fight indoctrination and the ability of a high school senior to do so are completely different. Younger children tend not to complain on their own about the nature of music chosen, but older children who have been taught to stand up for their rights will get in the teacher’s face about things. Then again, shy older children who are terrified of drawing attention to themselves will stay silent. It’s more likely that an older child in choir will be singing music composed by the great classical masters, and therefore singing more religious-themed music for non-religious reasons.
What is the music teacher’s agenda? Is he or she proselytizing? Making inappropriate comments about being “saved” or “accepting Jesus as your personal lord and savior”? Or is the teacher trying to be all things to all people, including some religious things because of the season but mostly focused on secular songs?
Now, once it is clearly established that the choir teacher is motivated by religion and not by education, or doesn’t care that children in his or her class come from backgrounds other than the teacher’s own religion, or is actively trying to indoctrinate and save little souls, it’s time to object.
My preferred approach is to object gently, at least at first. It may be that the teacher simply never imagined that there was any other worldview, that there might be local families who object to her religion. If the response is embarrassment and apology, Lois and Peter have gotten their message across without making huge waves. Meg and Chris don’t have to worry about embarrassment because the teacher, dismayed at her own lack of forethought, will scramble to change the song selections.
Save stronger objections for teachers who respond dismissively, or who tell Peter and Lois that the teacher, not the students, are in charge of music selection. Peter and Lois can let the teacher know that if she is not responsive to their concerns, the next step will be to involve the administration. If the teacher resentfully complies at this point, mission accomplished. Lois and Peter should be vigilant for complaints by Chris and Meg that the teacher has singled them out and is retaliating against them, though.
If Peter and Lois make this stronger objection and the teacher is adamantly (or passive-aggressively) unresponsive, or is completely dismissive of their concerns, Lois and Peter need meet with the principal. The principal may be unresponsive, too, and if that is the case, go to the superintendent. If none of this gets the mission accomplished, it’s time to write the school board, and attend a meeting.
Here’s where the “counselor at law” part of my attorney’s license kicks in.
Meg and Chris will be at the center of this controversy. Their friends will know about it. The cool kids who are not their friends will know about it. The uncool kids who think their stand is awesome will know about it and want to be friends with them. Other teachers will know about it. The parents of their friends and not-friends will know about it. Chris and Meg need to know that Lois and Peter will give them all the counseling and support they can muster.
Peter and Lois’s kids may hate them, but it is their responsibility as secularists and parents to make sure that Meg and Chris get the best possible education, and if that means taking on the Harper Valley PTA, so be it.
Meg will be fine – she’s got a good head on her shoulders and is confident. however, Lois is worried that Chris, who is already shy and uncertain of himself, might become even more introverted and isolated if they make a big stink. Taking on the entire school over this might cause a problem for him.
If that means finding a therapist for the kids to complain to, then Lois and Peter need to find such a therapist. In selecting a therapist, Peter and Lois should be certain that the therapist is atheist-friendly. If they don’t already know someone, hopefully they will be able to find a secular-friendly therapist at Recovering from Religion’s new Secular Therapist Project. If Lois and Peter live in my area, they’re in luck, because I just emailed four secular-friendly therapists I know, as well as one secular-friendly psychiatrist, and asked them to sign up. It’s a new organization and resource.
There are legal resources, too.
Atheist-friendly lawyers like me won’t have any trouble at all writing a letter to the school telling them that their music selection violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution and violates the separation of church and state. A letter may be all it takes. If it takes more, Lois and Peter may be concerned about how to pay for a lawsuit. If they win, as they should, their legal fees will be reimbursed by the school. That’s great if they can afford to pay the lawyer along the way, but what if they can’t?
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is awesome in their legal badassery. They take in these complaints and they contact violators and they get things done. If you aren’t already a member, join. It’s free. And then donatewhat you can to the legal fund. Lawyers aren’t free; we like to eat, have homes, and send our kids to college, even if we work for cool organizations like FFRF.
After you’ve gotten the “join” and the “donate” parts out of the way, it’s time to lodge a complaint. FFRF has an online form at http://ffrf.org/legal/report. Fill it out. Be prepared to answer follow-up questions.
Based on what I’ve seen, and I don’t work for them so don’t hold me to this, FFRF first sends a letter asking that the situation be remedied. It’s my understanding that FFRF can do this without identifying the child whose family is complaining. That’s what any lawyer would do, and essentially, getting FFRF involved is the same as getting a lawyer involved. If the parents report that nothing has changed, then suit is filed.
Lawyers can protect the identity of children who file lawsuits. Using names like “John Doe” or using initials are the customary ways. If the case proceeds to trial, though, the cat will be out of the bag. As parents, Lois and Peter need to be prepared for this. Chris and Meg should also be prepared for it, and willing to proceed.
I can’t stress enough how important a secular community is. A religious kid sticking up for her freedom of religion will have her church or mosque or temple behind her. If a situation has reached the point of litigation, there is no other way to resolve it, and everyone involved is emotional and determined.
A major weakness of the secular community is that we aren’t cohesive. It’s hard to have meetings of people based around what they don’t do. If Lois and Peter are the organizing types, now would be an excellent time to join or start a secularist club. Maybe they’re too caught up in the lawsuit, though. Their friend Cleveland can start the group, rally the secular troops, and let the community know that they won’t be intimidated. There are resources for this, too, like Meetup.com and even Facebook.
So, Lois and Peter, talk to that teacher. Take it all the way to court if necessary. You and your children have a right to be free from religion, and it’s up to you to make sure of that.
You must be logged in to post a comment.