Ruminations

Posted on

Charlie Brown Christmas Field Trip Cancelled

The field trip by the local elementary school to a church to see the Charlie Brown Christmas play, complete with Bible soliloquy, has been cancelled.

This is not a win for the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers.

Why not? Because the church, and not the school, is the entity that blinked. And that’s too bad. We still have a school district that thinks it’s okay to violate the constitutional rights of children, and was ready and willing to defend a religious field trip in court.

In a statement to the press about the cancellation, the church said,

In the wake of some controversy over our Christmas production offered to schools, Agape Church wishes to salute the courageous stand that the Terry Elementary Principal made in not succumbing to the pressure of one complaint voiced to the Arkansas Society of Free Thinkers and media.  We applaud the support that the Little Rock School District has shown to Mrs. Register, and agree with their position that attending the matinees was not a constitutional issue.  Christmas is a Christian holiday, hence its name, Christmas. Our program addresses its origins with light-hearted songs and theatre.  The context of the birth of Christ is broadly described in both Old & New Testament texts.

But because of what this issue has become, as a church, it is not our desire to put hard working, sacrificial teachers and cast members in harm’s way. What we want said is that we love our city, our schools, parents and families.  People are at the heart of the matter to us.  While we regret the loss of students who will not get this particular opportunity right now, we have taken the school matinees off the table, and welcome parents to bring their children to our public performance schedule, Saturday, December 15 @ 2pm and 6pm, and Sunday, Dec. 16 @ 6pm.

To quote bible verses and song lyrics that apply, they reflect our heart toward the Little Rock School District and everyone involved – Peace on Earth, Good will toward men.

Pastor Happy Caldwell, Agape Church

“Sacrificial teachers”? Please. That is just insulting. And who was in harm’s way? ASF had threatened nothing beyond a possible lawsuit. The hate and threats came from the religious people toward us, not the other way around – unless I just happened to miss the Meetup announcement as to when all my fellow Freethinkers would be out there naked at the church with their picket signs and their evolution and their gay marriage and their roasted babies in covered dishes, all plump and juicy and waiting for the potluck after the looting and pillaging and stuff.

And apparently Pastor Caldwell does not know where the traditions of Christmas, including Charlie Brown’s tree, actually came from.

 

With the additional performances over the weekend, any family that wants to take their kids can do so. The church may even get an overflow crowd because of all the free publicity we’ve generated for them. We wish them well.

This post originally appeared on WWJTD.)

Posted on

A Reader’s Legal Question: Student-Led Prayers

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 was talking at a conference recently with a hotshot in the atheist movement, and she told me thought that student led prayer etc. was not really legit. With a strict interpretation of separation of church and state would that not be true? What is the principle with which students are allowed but adults are not?

– Jimbo

Answer:

In public primary and secondary schools, the adults are employed by and acting for the government. The students are not. That means that adult religious speech is restricted and student religious speech is not – usually. This answer is restricted to public schools run by the government, which accounts for most schools in the U.S. In this answer when I say “school,” I mean a public, government-run school, not a private or parochial school. The rules are different for those.

We know that schools cannot start the school day with a prayer, and we know that prayer is not allowed at school functions like school board meetings, athletic events, and graduations. These are events organized and led by the adults at those schools, though. What about when students take the initiative?

A significant United Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines School District, decided in 1969, was not a religious freedom case, but controls freedom of speech by public school students, including their religious speech. The Tinker students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended when they refused not to wear them. The Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment applies to public school children, and that school administrators have to demonstrate a constitutionally valid reason for restricting student speech. If the school wanted to restrict the students’ speech, it had to prove that it had more reason than just to “avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpleasant viewpoint.”

So, the general rule is that if a voluntary group of students wants to pray at school, and voluntarily gather for that purpose, they can. The key term in that rule is the word “voluntary.”

As long as there are tests and oral reports, there will be prayer in schools – just not coordinated, formal prayer. Student-led or -initiated prayer over the school’s PA system, for example, is not a voluntary association of students agreeing to come together to exercise religious freedom, free speech, or freedom of association.  Nor is a student-led prayer – even a nondenominational and non-proselytizing one – over the PA system at a football game. “Moments of silence” for secular purposes, such as a meditative moment to calm rowdiness, are fine; moments of silence during which students are encouraged to pray are not permitted. Even non-denominational prayer is forbidden because the Establishment Clause requires absolute religious neutrality on the part of the government.

A “See You at the Pole” (SYAP) prayer movement began years ago, and students from all over the world participate annually, on the fourth Wednesday of September. Students who choose to do so gather at the school’s flagpole before classes begin for a student-led prayer. Unfortunately, SYAP events and other student-led religious clubs can serve as a vehicle to promote bullying of non-religious students, or even students who are not evangelical Christians. Public schools must protect their students from “subtle coercive pressure” in elementary and secondary schools, so administrators may be justified in stopping the campus meetings of these student groups if bullying actually does result.

Because of the coercive pressure exerted when the authority figures at a school participate in prayer, teachers, administrators, and coaches should not join the voluntary prayers of the students. There has not been a Supreme Court decision on this issue, but the various federal district and appellate court decisions on the subject tend to agree that adult participation lends too much emphasis to the religious activity.

(This post originally appeared on WWJTD.)

Posted on

Sanal Edamaruku Proves, Once Again, No Miracle

So, there’s this statue of the Madonna that sits in a small grotto near Ballinspittle, County Cork, Ireland, that allegedly started breathing and gesturing when it was approached by some worshippers back in 1985. “It’s a miracle!” cried devout Irish Catholics, who flocked to observe the moving, floating statue by the thousands. Since then, more than a quarter of a million people have made pilgrimages to the little grotto. “Even skeptics go away converted!” enthused a BBC report, despite the on-camera skepticism of the local Catholic bishop. “Seven out of ten people really see it move!”

As I reported last week, Indian skeptic Sanal Edamaruku is on the lam from the blasphemy charges leveled against him in India for exposing the bloody toes of the Jesus getting washed by physics instead of by miracles. He was in the neighborhood of Europe, so Atheist Ireland invited him to visit Ballinspittle to check out their local miracle. Not having anything more interesting to do, Edamaruku accepted. Geometry and magic laser beams ensued.

I truly hope he continues going around debunking miracle silliness while he’s on vacation from India’s ridiculously medieval laws.

(This post originally appeared on WWJTD.)

Posted on

Public School Field Trips, Religion, and the Law

Question:

What’s the big deal? Why can’t public school children go see that Charlie Brown Christmas play?

Answer:

The law of separation of church and state, as it applies to public school field trips, as explained by the Appignani Humanist Legal Center’s Bill Burgess in a letter sent Monday:

November 26, 2012

Sandra Register
Principal
Terry Elementary School
10800 Mara Lynn Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211

Dr. Morris Holmes
Little Rock School District
810 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

cc: Little Rock School District Board of Education

Re: Public Elementary School Field Trip to Church to See Christian Play

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am writing to alert you to a serious separation of church and state concern.  We have recently received a request for legal assistance from the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers and the Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason on behalf of the parents of a student at Terry Elementary School. They informed us that the school has scheduled a field trip for students to view a production of “Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown!,” a Christmas play with a sectarian theme, staged at and by Agape Church, a local evangelical Christian church,[1] the week of December 14.

The American Humanist Association is a national nonprofit organization with over 10,000 members and 20,000 supporters across the country, including in Arkansas.  The purpose of AHA’s legal center is to protect one of the most fundamental legal principles of our democracy: the constitutional mandate requiring separation of church and state, embodied in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[2]

As you must know, the Supreme Court has made clear that the “First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state” and that this “wall must be kept high and impregnable.”  Everson v. Bd. of Ed. of Ewing Twp., 330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947).  To do so, “the Constitution mandates that the government remain secular.”  County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 610 (1989).  In order to secure this freedom from state-backed religion, the Constitution requires that any governmental “practice which touches upon religion, if it is to be permissible under the Establishment Clause,” must have a “secular purpose” and not “advance . . . religion.”  Id. at 590.  Specifically, the government “may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization.”  Id.  Courts “pay particularly close attention to whether the challenged governmental practice either has the purpose or effect of [unconstitutionally] ‘endorsing’ religion.”  Id. at 591.  Endorsement includes “conveying or attempting to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.”  Id. at 593.

In short, “religion must be a private matter for the individual, the family, and the institutions of private choice,” not the state.  Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 625 (1971).  In addition, the Supreme Court has in particular expressed especially “heightened concern” about preventing any sort of public school involvement with religion because of the risk of “subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools” environment.  Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 592 (1992).

Applying these general constitutional rules to the issue at hand, we have reason to believe that the school’s actions are in violation of the Establishment Clause.  The school is encouraging impressionable young students to attend an event in a Christian venue with a Christian message.  The effect is to affiliate the school with that message, encouraging its adoption by the students by means of this endorsement.

In the play, following a raucous and disjointed attempt to put on a Christmas pageant, Charlie Brown expresses frustration.  Linus says he can tell Charlie Brown “what Christmas is all about.”  He then quotes verbatim the New Testament of the Bible, Luke 2:8-14:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.  And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.  And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.  And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.  And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

The characters then cease bickering, adopt this religious view (rejecting the supposed “commercialism” of a secular Christmas celebration), and, in the immediately following final scenes, sing “Hark the Herald Angels Sing”:

Hark the herald angels sing
“Glory to the newborn King!”
Peace on earth and mercy mild
God and sinners reconciled
Joyful, all ye nations rise
Join the triumph of the skies
With the angelic host proclaim:
“Christ is born in Bethlehem.”
Hark! The herald angels sing
“Glory to the newborn King!”

The message of the play is clear: Jesus Christ is the son of God and the messiah, and the real meaning of Christmas is to celebrate the anniversary of his birth.  It is completely sectarian in nature and expressly rejects any secular version of Christmas.

A church is of course free to spread this religious message.  Our public schools, however, are not free to take part in the effort.  They may not choose to promote it by encouraging students to attend, let alone by organizing and funding attendance by means of an official field trip.  Although objecting students may decline to attend, they will face the subtly coercive pressure of their peers to do so (in addition of course to the explicit encouragement of the school).  Because of this, the Supreme Court has made clear that an Establishment Clause violation is not “mitigated by the fact that individual students may absent themselves upon parental request.”  Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 224-25 (1963). 

The Establishment Clause forbids our schools from promoting a religious message in this way.  This trip must therefore be canceled.  In the alternative, it may be modified to be instead a visit to a secular Christmas-themed theatrical performance, such as the Nutcracker, would of course present no issue.

Please notify us in writing about the steps you are taking to avoid this constitutional violation so that we may avoid any potential litigation.  Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

 

Sincerely,

William J. Burgess
Appignani Humanist Legal Center
American Humanist Association
________________________

[1]   https://www.agape-church.org/.

[2]  The very first sentence of the Bill of Rights mandates that the state be secular: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  This provision, known as the Establishment Clause, “build[s] a wall of separation between church and State.”  See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878).  The Supreme Court “has given the [Establishment Clause] a ‘broad interpretation . . . in the light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress. . . .’  [finding that it] afford[s] protection against religious establishment far more extensive than merely to forbid a national or state church.”  McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 442 (1961).

This post originally appeared on WWJTD.)

Posted on

The Grinch Who Stole Charlie Brown’s Christmas

Since I’ve been all over national – and international – news the last week or two because of my insidious hatred for Charlie Brown and my determination not to let kids have any holiday fun at all, I’ve gotten some hate mail.

The email below came from a woman I have known personally for several years. I have served with her on a national board, and she and I shared a flight back from a meeting in Washington DC a couple of years ago. We enjoyed each other’s company. She didn’t realize that she was having a pleasant conversation with the poster girl for the Atheist Taliban, and when Faux News informed her of such, she became somewhat irate. She sent me an email that most people would not send except to a stranger. I couldn’t let this one go. I haven’t responded to any of the other nasty emails, but I know this woman. I have enjoyed her company.

And the tone of her email lets me know in a critically wounding way that I have not gotten the message out that I need to get out. I need to explain why the <a href=”http://unitedcor.org/central-arkansas/news” rel=”external>Arkansas Society of Freethinkers, on behalf of – and at the request of – our members who have children at that school, object to a public school taking young elementary children out of class to bus them to an evangelical Christian church to see a Christmas play, the main point of which is to tell them that if their families aren’t celebrating Christmas because of the Sweet Little Baby Jesus, they are not doing it right. So, verbatim, here’s what she wrote, and here is my answer:

Dear Anne, 

I am “outraged” that atheists are denying children the right to see “A Charlie Brown Christmas” in Little Rock. Let 6 and 7 yr. olds be “Freethinkers.” Let them decide. Unbeliever’s children are not allowing freethinking. Ironic..Atheists are deciding for their children AND for the Christian children. It is “awkward” and “unacceptable” to deny Christians the field trip. Good Grief!! Unbelievers’ children can sit in another classroom. Their parents are out of step.

Atheists have their own holiday April 1st when they celebrate April Fool’s Day. I am sad to have read this national news being made by a fellow [member of our organization]. 

You may be The Grinch who TRIED to steal Christmas. But, Christmas is celebrated in our hearts. So atheists continue to lose. 

Are you on [the board]’s Education Committee?? 

Louise

 

Dear Louise:

No one is denying children the “right” to see anything. These children are certainly free to go with their parents or friends to see the play, which is being offered at other times outside of school hours. If their parents want them to see the play, we think it would be a fun family outing. We would encourage them to go – just not as a public school field trip.

We hope that Agape Church has a great crowd for their play and we wish them well. We have no problem with the church offering this play to the community. Our concern is that a public school should not waste its limited resources on a field trip to a church where the children will learn that there is only one “right” way to celebrate this holiday season, regardless of their family’s religion.

The problem is not that Christian children shouldn’t see the play. The problem is that the public school is part of the government, and the government is prohibited by law from supporting any particular religion. Public schools may not take children away from instructional time to transport them to a church to see a play with a religious message. It’s illegal.

This particular play bemoans the commercialization of Christmas. It climaxes when a character recites a lengthy passage from the Bible, then declares that the biblical passage is the “real” reason for Christmas. That scene is the whole point of the story. That makes the play one with not only a religious theme, but a sectarian one. By taking the children to see this play, the public school is telling them that any other reason for celebrating this holiday – as well as not celebrating the holiday at all – is wrong.

There are students in that school who are Jewish, Muslim, and Christian. There are Buddhist children and Hindu children there. There are also children with no religious affiliation. People of many faiths celebrate for different reasons during the winter holiday season. People with no religious affiliation also celebrate. For instance, my atheist household celebrates Christmas eve and Christmas day as a time of love, of family closeness, of sharing, and of joyful and compassionate giving to each other and service to our community. We celebrate the things of the holiday that are important to us. We also celebrate with our Christian family members and friends, but perhaps not for the same reason that they do.

Children in elementary school are not in a position to decide about religion for themselves. They are indoctrinated into the religion of their parents. A public school may not legally instruct a child as to what religion or religious customs the child should observe. It is illegal for a public school to tell a child that his or his family’s way of celebrating a holiday is wrong. “Your family does it wrong” is the emphatic message that this field trip will send to non-Christian children as well as to Christian children  (like those whose families are Jehovah’s Witnesses) who celebrate Christmas differently or not at all.

Because children in our school district are limited to only two or three field trips a year, we think that those field trips should be educational for all of the children, not religious reinforcement for the Christian children, and not religious marginalization of non-Christian children. This would not have been an issue had this field trip been to see the Nutcracker, which is a seasonal story without religious themes, and which has the additional qualities of exposing its audience to classical music and ballet in a theatrical setting.

Bullying is rampant in public schools. A child who is singled out as “different” is always going to be at higher risk for bullying. Atheist children are already bullied in public schools. By reinforcing the mindset that there is only one “right” way to celebrate the holidays, children who are singled out as having families that do things differently will be at higher risk of being bullied. It is not acceptable for the school to put these high-risk children at an even greater risk.

I have received a lot of angry and hateful emails like yours – some of which have included actual threats – as a result of the media coverage of this incident. They underscore why the parents of this child did not want to identify themselves and their child publicly. It would be dangerous for them to do so.  Simply because I spoke out for them, and simply because my organization ensures that the law of separation between church and state is enforced, my group and I have been characterized as having declared war on Christmas.

I like Christmas. I don’t want it to go away. But I don’t think our public schools have any business sending kids a message that their families aren’t doing Christmas right.

Anne

So, that’s what I wrote back to Louise. I should have said more to her.

I should have said that, yes, I was on the education committee at one time, and that because I care about education, I care that indoctrination is not a part of it. I strongly believe that even young children should be taught critical thinking skills. Unless they have been taught critical thinking skills, a six or seven-year-old who is naturally skeptical enough to see the mythology of the Christmas story is rare, indeed. We know that. Children of this age are told that if they do not behave well then Santa won’t visit them, and their parents tend to be rewarded with better behavior. Children this age believe in a tooth fairy that leaves money under their pillows for those first lost teeth. Children this age are sure that an Easter bunny leaves them eggs and candy.  In other words, children this age are usually not capable of the critical thinking processes that distinguish fact from fiction.

I should have pointed out that not even all Christians celebrate Christmas and those who do celebrate it in lots of different ways. I should have reminded the people I’ve been talking with that Christmas traditions were co-opted by Christianity from many other, non-Christian traditions.

I should have borrowed Hemant Mehta’s words. (Hemant, if you read this, thank you for your support.) Hemant reminded me that not only does this play expose children to Christianity, it promotes it. He emphasized the dilemma facing the parents we are attempting to help: “It’s tough to speak up against something like this because you’re going up against the majority as well as a tradition. It’s even tougher when you’re putting your child at risk of being ostracized instead of just yourself…Christians just assume everyone agrees with them and it’s downright dangerous in some areas to disagree. You risk losing friends, social status, and respect.” He is dead right, and that’s exactly why the parents came to the Freethinkers, and why they are definitely not willing to be unmasked now that the uproar has become a national outcry. These parents want to protect their own family’s beliefs, and the school has absolutely no business treading on religious ground.

I should have pointed out that atheists don’t see themselves as losers at all. We are, in fact, much freer than someone shackled to an outdated religious code of conduct. We are not burdened with the guilt or fear imposed by dire promises of a vengeful god, and we are moral and law-abiding because that’s what we think we ought to be – not because someone threatens to make us miserable for an eternity if we aren’t. We know that this life is the only one we have, so we make the most of it, as best we can. We are compassionate and charitable not because some Bronze Age book of fairy tales tells us to be, but because being compassionate and charitable makes us feel good, and makes our world a better place and our relationships deeper and fuller.

I should have said that a play promoted by a memo to parents that admits candidly, “This production does expose your child to Christianity through some of the songs and scenes” is a play to which no school should take children. The fact that the school had to put a label on the letter home that said, in effect, “Warning: Religious Content” should have been a huge red flag to the school that they had no business planning this field trip. How is it fair, or reasonable, to warehouse first and second graders in an unfamiliar classroom to protect them from someone else’s idea of religion?

A lot of objections have come to my attention. Even other non-theists have questioned whether this is a battle we really want to fight. I firmly believe that it is. Children have a right not to be ostracized at school for not practicing their teacher’s religion. It is our understanding that these children might not have been invited to the church but for the fact that their teacher was in the play. Talk about coercive pressure! I want to thank Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times, too. He reminded me that I should have said that this field trip to see a teacher in a religiously-themed play is nothing less than proselytizing. The situation is completely insensitive to the potential feelings of these young children and their families. The tyranny of the majority marginalizes a known minority population within the school, and apparently, the school administrators do not care. They should be ashamed.

I wish I had said outright what JT said when he reported on this situation initially:that younger atheist kids in elementary school are closeted for a number of reasons, and sometimes on the strict instruction of their parents: for fear of bullying, ostracism, and of being singled out for any reason. And there are lots of times when I wish I had the nerve to say publicly what I have no problem saying privately: that people who think it’s okay to violate someone’s constitutional rights are full of… well, they’re just wrong.  (I still can’t bring myself to say it publicly.)

I should have thought to say what my friend Lainey said: “I would be pissed if I were one of the parents. Not so much because of my child being exposed to the religious content in Charlie Brown as much as the fact that the school administrators clearly don’t take keeping religion out of the classroom, which is part of their jobs, as seriously as they should. It’s really not about Charlie Brown! It’s about separation of church and state which is very important to non-Christians because we’re in the minority, and they’re demonstrating that they don’t care about even showing us that consideration. It’s very important to speak out and stand up for your rights the very moment they start getting infringed upon. Protecting separation of church and state is far more important than the needs/desires of these children to see this performance. And simply saying it’s not mandatory isn’t fair to the kids — why not simply take them to an event that ALL of the kids can enjoy?”

“Now, come on, really. What’s the harm?” I’ve been asked. The expression on my face probably mirrors Dave Silverman’s, when he was on Bill O’Reilly’s show, being told that the tides come in, the tides go out…

I appreciate the statement that another supporter, Randy, added to the conversation: “I can remember how being different in school is like throwing a bleeding person overboard into shark-infested waters. Children can be very cruel.  Every time I hear of another child or teenager committing suicide, I wonder what the cause was. The religious community continues its attack on the wall of separation between church and state, and we need to patch these breaches when we find them.” So many of the comments I have received tell me that I am exaggerating how atheist kids can be bullied. Since I’ve been bullied plenty for my atheism, even by members of my own family, I call bullshit on those comments.

“This is the dominant culture of this country!” I’ve been told. “Children should know it, and know it well!” Again, I have that Dave Silverman expression of incredulity. Do they really think that children aren’t going to know the Christmas myth if they don’t get to see Charlie Brown? Really? Why not actually expose children to something they might not otherwise be exposed to? The Nutcracker is a beautiful fantasy story that happens to take place on Christmas, but it has no religious theme at all. It exposes children to the beauty of ballet and the glorious music of a full classical orchestra. There are a lot of children who will never see a live ballet or hear a live orchestra in their lives. Wouldn’t that be more appropriate than a rehash of a cartoon they can see any number of times for a solid month each year?

Like my friend Lisa, who is a public school teacher herself, I am annoyed as a taxpayer in this school district that the school is not using the fuel, money, and time on a bona fide learning adventure. Instead, the school wants a rehash of a cartoon that is shown yearly on network television.

“Humbling” does not even begin to describe how I feel, sitting in the crosshairs of those who would hunt down the “Atheist Taliban.” (Yes, someone said that – although, fortunately, he was kidding.) I worry that the message I need send is not getting delivered.

What really stings, though, is that I am being personally attacked because I stood up for a child.

(This post originally appeared on WWJTD.)

Posted on

The Week in Review – Law and Atheism

For this week’s legal roundup, and the arrows are back with a vengeance.

Today’s first item just gets all sorts of my tacky little arrows. It’s awesomeness really deserves twinkling lights and a neon border, too, but I can’t tart up JT’s blog too much or he’ll stop me from posting. Writer Suzanne Lamb and her cohorts from the SSA at Western Kentucky University have taken on religion in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. Since the school district has allowed religious organizations including the Gideons to pass out Bibles and other Christian literature, Lamb asked for – and received – the same opportunity. She and the SSA are attending after-hours school-sponsored events and passing out FFRF info and copies of Dan Barker’s book, Godless, at Muhlenberg County high schools. The school board has a “community use” policy that permitted any nonprofit organization to distribute literature on school grounds.

One particularly outraged Kentuckian said, “I think it’s giving them an opportunity to impose their views and their values where they shouldn’t have a right to do that.” He added, “No one … should be allowed to go into the schools to go in and push their doctrine and their belief, which I believe to be a false belief – on any children. They’re opening the door for anybody to go in, and that would be including the atheists!”

Halleluiah, he gets it!

And so does the school superintendent, who said that the schools would not discriminate among nonprofit groups wanting to spread their information to students. Horrified that atheists (gasp!) have access to school children, the school board is likely to change the policy for the next school year to prohibit all nonprofit organizations from distributing literature at the public schools. My hat is off to Suzanne Lamb, and I hope others reading this blog and wanting ideas for way to be activists without risking arrest will take a page from her playbook. Lamb alerted me by email that there is a Canadian family doing the same thing in Ontario. This means FFRF reaches across borders to help spread secularism.

I encourage you to check out Lamb’s blog, What to Tell the Neighbors, in which she chronicles more details about her battle with the schools. One recent post contains an especially poignant email from a former Muhlenberg County student, who thought he was the only atheist around. Those of us who grew up without religion or who never managed to buy into the faith of our parents know exactly how that young person felt.

#####

Sanal J. Edamaruku is on a mission. He is traveling all over Europe to raise awareness of India’s colonial-era blasphemy laws. He hopes that the negative international attention will pressure India’s government to repeal them. He has a reason – he’s had to flee the country because of them and because of the death threats he received when he proved last March that Jesus Never Wept. As the founder of Rationalist International, Edamaruku is pretty much the James Randi of India. He’s the guy who challenged a tantrik, or black magician, to kill him – using only magic – on television a few years ago. The three-minute attempt was broadcast live, and when it failed even after Edamaruku graciously allowed the tantrick to continue trying to kill him for five hours, the magician declared that Edamaruku was clearly under the protection of a powerful god. Edamaruku replied, “Nope; I’m atheist,” and jaws dropped all over the religious world.

In Mumbai earlier this year, a big, wooden crucifix started dripping water from the bloody toes of the Jesus, so of course the natural thing for most people to do was to declare a miracle and commence with the pilgrimages and the bottling of the water, ’cause ain’t nothing holier than a leaky crucifix. Edamaruku showed – once again on live TV – that Jesus’ toes were crying over a clogged drain and the resulting capillary action that funneled the water through a nail hole in the crucifix, and that the wooden Jesus was not bothered in the least by the gruesome depiction of his death. The Catholic Church was very upset that its miracle was really science. Angered by Edamaruku’s accusation of “miracle-mongering,” the local bishop filed a formal complaint against him for “hurting the religious sentiments of the community,” which carries up to a three-year prison sentence. (Thanks, Mom, for not punishing Sis and me like this for hurting each other’s feelings as kids.)

###

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. has appealed the decision by a federal trial judge that they have to provide coverage for contraceptives in its company health care policy. Interestingly, at one time the employee insurance plan did include these emergency contraceptives. When the employers realized this, they removed two emergency contraceptive drugs from the approved list. The judge indicated that he was sympathetic to the situation of the companies and their owners, but that the court was required to follow the law.

The judge refused to grant an injunction in favor of Hobby Lobby, its sister Corporation Mardel, and the owners of the two companies, despite their claims that they are religious employers and therefore should be exempted from contraceptive coverage required under the Affordable Care Act. The trial judge pointed out that to qualify as a “religious employer,” the purpose of the companies and their owners must be to companies and their owners must be a nonprofit organization primarily engaged in the business of religious indoctrination, that their employees must share the employer’s religious tenets, and that the employer must primarily serve people who share the religious tenets of the organization. Obviously, these companies do not meet these criteria.

Hobby Lobby also argued that the Obamacare contraceptive mandate requires them to violate their religious beliefs and “substantially burdens their religious exercise.” This language invoked the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says that the “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the burden furthers a “compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” The trial judge said that while the owners of the companies obviously had religious views, the companies themselves were incapable of holding religious views, because corporations are not people for every constitutional purpose, and because general business corporations do not exercise religion.

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which assured corporations a right to free speech and unlimited spending on that speech even in politics, the trial judge noted that not every constitutional right has been granted to corporations. Religious liberty is intended to protect an individual’s liberty.  If a law restricting religious conduct – as opposed to religious thought or belief – is both neutral in its treatment of religion and is generally applicable no matter what, it only has to be “rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest to survive a constitutional challenge.”

Hobby Lobby could not prove to the trial court that the contraceptive mandate was religious in nature, or that the mandate was intended to do anything other than to promote gender equality and public health.  What’s really bad, the court said, is that the constitutional rights of the employees are affected: procreation, marriage contraception, and abortion are private matters within the domain of the individual to exercise or not.

The Chester County, Pennsylvania, Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! ‘Tis the season to remind local governments that there is more to celebrate each December than a baby who might or might not have been born in unsanitary circumstances somewhere in the Middle East 2012 years and one month ago. (The Pope says he wasn’t – can you believe that Benedict XVI actually gets an upvote this week for helping to debunk Christian myths? I know! Me either!)

Evangelical Pastafarian (did you know there were such?) Tracy McPherson bravely challenged the Chester County Commissioners, who have failed so far to include Pastafarianism in the county’s seasonal displays. She demanded that her religion be acknowledged alongside the Jewish Menorah and Christian Nativity Scene. More of us should design seasonal displays and demand they be given equal time.

William Cox has stepped up to the plate in an FFRF lawsuit that was in danger of being dismissed. He agreed to be a named plaintiff in a lawsuit to remove a religious statue from a Montana ski slope. FFRF had sued in its own name on behalf of its members, but the Catholic men’s organization Knights of Columbus, which erected the statue, objected to FFRF’s legal standing without a person actually named as a plaintiff. Thank you, William Cox! According to news reports, “several out-of-state conservative and religious groups have pledged their support in defending the statue’s existence on its 25-by-25 foot patch of land, saying it represents the history and heritage of the region.” I wonder what the dozen or so tribes of people indigenous to the region have to say about the religious history of their region?

(This post originally appeared on WWJTD.)

Posted on

No Yeti

The beauty of these letters is sublime.

No Yeti for Skeptic

Skeptic that I am, I cannot move beyond this simple truthful statement to play some other word.

Posted on

Happy Thanksgiving!

Our religious family members, friends, and neighbors are celebrating today by thanking their deity for things that either happened naturally or were done by human hands. As realistic, reasoning, committed non-theists and skeptics we owe thanks to lots of people who make our lives more comfortable. We should be grateful for the first-world problems we have – we could be having third-world problems.

I edit a newsletter for a historical society I belong to, and its most recent edition went out last week. Because it was a November edition, the president of the society asked me to reprint George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789.

Since Washington focused his gratitude on God, I felt his proclamation was totally inadequate for the job. Here’s the incomplete list I put together to address the things left out of the first official American Thanksgiving:

  • Volunteers, without whom so much good would be left undone
  • Activists, without whom social change might be impossible
  • Science and scientists: better living couldn’t happen without them
  • Mom and Dad, for creating us
  • The rest of the family, for putting up with us
  • Clients and colleagues
  • The end of the election season
  • Children who make us smile and burst our hearts with their innocence and joy
  • Teachers, because we like to know things
  • Writers – if they didn’t record things, we’d have to figure out everything from scratch
  • Engineers, who design things big and small
  • People from other cultures, who keep us humble and teach us that there are other ways to do things
  • Medical professionals who stitch us up, diagnose us, heal us, and do their best to keep us well
  • Police and firefighters who keep us safe
  • Al Gore for inventing the Internet (not really – but we are thankful for the Internet!)
  • Factory workers, because they make all our stuff
  • People who do things we can’t do
  • People who do things we don’t want to do
  • Friends, even those we don’t often see or haven’t seen in years
  • Freshly fallen southern pecans, which I will pick up from my mother’s yard today after feasting – to work off some of that incredibly good meal
  • Farmers who grow our food
  • Truckers who bring our food to the grocery store, and who bring us other stuff
  • Grocery stores, which provide us with the ingredients for Thanksgiving dinner
  • Cookbooks, without which Thanksgiving dinner would not be possible even with all of the above
  • Thanksgiving dinner – Yum!

(This post originally appeared at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/11/happy-thanksgiving-from-anne/)

Posted on

Whence Cometh “Separation of Church and State”?

For some reason, over the last few days I’ve gotten a number of irascible Facebook posts, nasty emails, and all around ugly comments aimed in my direction.

This one was more politely worded than most:

Would you be so kind as to show me where In the Constitution or the Bill of Rights you find this? The key to my question is very simple, it must be in the those two Founding Documents, not some other papers, such as in Personal Letters or what someone thinks those two Documents say. But word for word what you stated above.

And to help you, I will post the Amendment which you are speaking to:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

 

Okay, I’ll bite. 

This is actually a common complaint from the religious far right, especially those who think that since their particular brand of religion is dominant in this country, the rest of us should all bow our heads, shut up, and go along with it.

The questioner apparently knows that the phrase “separation of church and state” was used by Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists. It has been used by many others to express the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It has been quoted by courts, and, to the dismay of the questioner and his ilk, is now the law when it comes to matters of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

These are vitally important words. I’ll explain why “separation of church and state” became the phrase used in the law.

Jefferson’s letter read, in toto:

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

The phrase that Jefferson used, “a wall of separation between church and state,” has been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States. In Reynolds v. United States, an 1879 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the majority wrote that Jefferson’s comments “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.” Reynolds was the case that conclusively decided that Mormons could not engage in polygamy because bigamy was illegal.

Mr. Reynolds claimed that his religion required him to engage in polygamy, and therefore he had a religious duty to violate the bigamy law. Citing Jefferson’s Danbury letter, the U.S. Supreme Court made a distinction between belief and action. Believing in polygamy was fine, and no law would ever stop anyone from believing whatever they believed. Faith, as Jefferson said, “lies solely between Man & his God,” and no person had to “account to any other for his faith or his worship.” However, acting on that belief contrary to the law and public policy was not permitted. Again, as Jefferson had said to the Danbury Baptists, “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only,” and actions taken contrary to law could be punished by the government.

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), erudite U. S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black referred to the Danbury Baptists letter when he wrote: “In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.” This supreme court case made it clear that the Constitution and all of its amendments, including the First Amendment, applied to the states as well as to the federal government.

The Everson case had to do with reimbursements to parents whose children took public transportation to school. The U.S. Supreme Court split in a 5-4 decision over whether the reimbursements to parents taking public transportation to private school were unconstitutional, with the majority deciding that the reimbursements did not establish religion. What everyone on that court agreed to, though, was that a wall of separation between church and state was critically necessary.

Justice Black’s language was the broadest and most clear:

The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.

There have been lots of decisions since these two, lots prior to these two, and lots between these two. Separation of church and state is not just a catchphrase; it’s the law.

Some people, like the commenter who (more politely than most these last few days) wrote to me, object to the letters of the men who drafted the Amendment being used to interpret it. Courts often look to the intent of the people who wrote the laws in question to determine what was intended. The phrase found in legal opinions that do this is “looking to the legislative intent.” When applied to the Constitution, it is called the “looking to the intent of the framers.”

Because court decisions have historically interpreted the Establishment Clause to erect this wall of separation between church and state, and since Congress has never passed any law contravening it, “separation of church and state” is the law of the United States of America.

To demand that the constitution say exactly the verbiage we commonly use is absurd; the document was never intended to cover every possibility, but rather to broadly enumerate basic rights. If anyone wants a more thorough explanation of why the Constitution is worded the way it is, I suggest reading the Federalist Papers compiled by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay during the Constitutional Convention of 1789. The Federalist Papers are a collection of 85 essays written during the Constitutional Convention that describe the process or creating the foundational legal document on which the rest our laws rest. Often the essays of the Federalist Papers were being written in the same room as the debates raged among the attendees of the convention. The Federalist Papers are free in various formats from numerous sites. Get them in ebook format from Project Gutenberg and from the Library of Congress, download a free PDF from Penn State, or get the audio books from Project Gutenberg or Librivox.

For those who need a history refresher, James Madison was the Secretary of State who negotiated and supervised the Louisiana Purchase and later was president of the U.S. during the War of 1812; Alexander Hamilton was the nation’s first Secretary of the Treasury until he was killed in an ill-advised duel with Jefferson’s former Vice President Aaron Burr; and John Jay was the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Very colorful characters were midwives to the birth of this nation’s laws – gentlemen, rogues, scoundrels, and philosophers all played a part.

But how does a court get to decide what the Constitution means? The quick answer is that courts are the arbiters of disputes, and therefore must be able to interpret laws. The 1803 U.S. Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison, decided by the famous Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, established judicial review of administrative and legislative actions and cemented the separation of equal powers between our three branches of government – ensuring that each branch checked and balanced the other two.

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes the Constitution, treaties, and the laws of the United States as the supreme law of the land. The power of judicial review is implied when Article III, pertaining to the judiciary, and Article VI, containing the Supremacy Clause, are read together. The Supremacy Clause says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Therefore, until the United States Supreme Court decides otherwise, “separation of church and state” is the law of the United States of America.

When I was in law school almost three decades ago (now I feel really old!) I clerked in the law office of my older cousin. He is a garrulous, opinionated fellow who regularly both pissed me off and taught me a lot.  He once told me, standing in front of a case full of dense law books, that Constitutional Law was only good for cocktail party conversation. Of all that he ever said to me – and I disagreed with him a lot – this is the only thing I seriously take issue with.

(This post originally appeared at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/11/from-whence-cometh-separation-of-church-and-state/)

Posted on

The Week in Review – Law and Atheism

This week’s roundup of legal news:

A judge in Oklahoma sentenced a juvenile who was convicted of manslaughter to church instead of prison. Tyler Alred’s friend was killed when the car Alred was driving crashed. The teenagers had been drinking. While I don’t think prison is a healthy place for anyone, and certainly not for a juvenile, I can’t help but wish something could be done about this aspect of the young man’s sentence. If the juvenile appeals his sentence and it is found to be unconstitutional, he might be re-sentenced and sent to prison. So this judge, who has apparently sentenced other defendants to church, will not only get away with it but keep on doing it. A 16-year-old who accidentally kills his friend will live with that horror for the rest of his life, anyway. Alred has a laundry list of other requirements to meet that are common to rules of probation or parole: things like finishing school, finding a job, and more. If he doesn’t do as he has been ordered, he’ll spend up to ten years in prison. The victim’s family did not want him to serve time. “We don’t need to see two lives wasted for a mistake,” said the victim’s sister.  How many of us might agree to suffer through ten years of church?

In response to the 9/11 attacks, the Kentucky legislature made an official “finding” in 2002 that the “safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.” Aided by American Atheists, secularist plaintiffs won at the trial level when the trial judge agreed that the state had “created an official government position on God.” But the state appellate court said something to the effect of “oh, those are just words, you know?” so now the plaintiffs are asking the United States Supreme Court to weigh in. When Alternet reported this story yesterday, its article, which got widespread attention, said that the state’s citizens had to acknowledge the existence of “Almighty God” or be prosecuted and punished with up to a year in prison. That’s not exactly the case.  The article corrected itself later, by accurately reporting that a plaque with a religious statement attributing public safety and homeland security to Almighty God had to be placed on the wall of the state’s homeland security building, or the executive director of the agency risked a year in jail for a misdemeanor violation. Kentucky Revised Statute 39G.010(2) says, in relevant part:

The executive director shall: (a) Publicize the findings of the General Assembly stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth by including the provisions of KRS 39A.285(3) in its agency training and educational materials. The executive director shall also be responsible for prominently displaying a permanent plaque at the entrance to the state’s Emergency Operations Center stating the text of KRS 39A.285(3)[.]

The legislative finding referred to in the above statute is in KRS 9A.285. The italicized words are what the Executive Director of Kentucky Homeland Security is supposed to post on the wall of the building:

The General Assembly hereby finds that:

(1) No government by itself can guarantee perfect security from acts of war or terrorism.

(2) The security and well-being of the public depend not just on government, but rest in large measure upon individual citizens of the Commonwealth and their level of understanding, preparation, and vigilance.

(3) The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God as set forth in the public speeches and proclamations of American Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln’s historic March 30, 1863, Presidential Proclamation urging Americans to pray and fast during one of the most dangerous hours in American history, and the text of President John F. Kennedy’s November 22, 1963, national security speech which concluded: “For as was written long ago: ‘Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.’ “

The second statute, with the italicized language, went into effect March 28, 2002. The posting requirements were not passed into law until 2006 when the American Atheists lawsuit was initiated.

Something to point out about this is the fact that the Kentucky Legislature mentions a November 22, 1963, JFK speech about national security. That speech was not given 49 years ago today in Dallas, Texas, by President John F. Kennedy. On his way to the luncheon where he was to deliver it, Kennedy was assassinated.

What the Kentucky legislature chose to ignore was the fact that John F. Kennedy had given another speech in Texas three years earlier, making it crystal clear that, despite his strongly held personal religious beliefs, Kennedy also believed that keeping church and state separate was of absolute paramount importance.

Let’s hope the conservative United States Supreme Court does the right thing.

The Speaker of Uganda’s Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga,  says that Uganda’s new “Kill the Gays” bill will be passed before the end of 2012 despite vigorous and vocal international criticism of the legislation. She called it a “Christmas gift” to Uganda’s Christian population. Uganda already criminalizes homosexual behavior, but the new bill adds different levels of seriousness to the crime of being gay, punishment for which ranges from life imprisonment to death:

‘Aggravated homosexuality’ is defined as gay acts committed by parents or authority figures, HIV-positive people, pedophiles and repeat offenders. If convicted, they will face the death penalty.

The ‘offense of homosexuality’ includes same-sex sexual acts or being in a gay relationship, and will be prosecuted by life imprisonment.

According to one report, Several European countries have threatened to cut aid to Uganda if it passes, with the UK government warning Uganda it would face severe reductions in financial help. President Obama has described it as ‘odious’, and Canadian politician John Baird has said it is ‘vile, abhorrent, and offends decency’.

The preaching and teachings of evangelical American Christians, including Rick Warren (The Purpose Driven Life) and Scott Lively (whose Abiding Truth Ministries are listed as a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center), have been credited with “igniting” the homophobic rampages.

Uganda is notorious for its superstitions, child sacrifice by witch doctors.  Burningsuspected witches alive is still prevalent in the country. (Warning: This video  is a graphic recording of an alleged witch being burned alive in Uganda in 2011.)

So, yeah, modern American Christian evangelism does serious harm in today’s world, in case there are any fence-sitters out there reading this.
U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins said that the city of Santa Monica, California, did not have to allow any seasonal displays, religious or otherwise, in its park. Last year, to the dismay of the Christians who had previously dominated the annual seasonal display in the park, a number of atheists got 18 out of 21 spaces that Santa Monica regularly let religious groups use to erect seasonal displays. About half of the non-theist displays were vandalized, so the city ended its tradition of allowing the seasonal displays. The city decided to stop all displays in the park. In court Monday, Deputy City Attorney Yibin Shen said the ban had been under consideration for 20 years and was ultimately motivated by the cost to the city after the number of applicants spiked in recent years. The department in charge of running the lottery for booth spaces doubled its staff and spent 245 hours annually running the system and reviewing applications.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State and eight other groups representing Jewish, Unitarian Universalist, and secular organizations have filed an amicus brief in a death penalty case in Florida. Amici curiae, or “friends of the court” briefs are filed by individuals or groups who are not parties to the lawsuit in question, but who feel they have something important to add to the issue under consideration. Frequently these groups want to influence public policy which will result from the decision. In this case, the defendant was sentenced to death after the prosecutor quoted extensively from the Bible, specifically from the book of Romans, in his cross-examination of a minister in the sentencing phase of the case. The passages he quoted demanded the death penalty. The organizations asked to file the brief because, despite their various religious viewpoints, they are “united in the view that the decision between life and death in a capital case should not turn on the jury’s interpretation of religious doctrine.”

In matters of legal amusement, private funds paid for a monument with the Ten Commandments to be erected on the lawn of the Oklahoma State Capitol. Many are snickering at its misspellings, which are expected to be corrected. Oklahoma’s ACLU is determining whether a legal challenge will be made. Since the existence of the ten commandments on government property has repeatedly been held to violate the Constitution, a legal challenge has a high likelihood of success. The Oklahoma ACLU’s organizer, Ryan Kiesel, was a Democratic House member at the time the law was passed allowing the erection of the monument. He was among 16 absent when the final vote in the Oklahoma House passed the law allowing placement of the monument 83-2. I have no clue why Kiesel was absent that day.

Greece has brought blasphemy charges against the performers, producer, and director of an Athens production of Terrence McNally’s play “Corpus Christi.” The play portrays Jesus and the disciples as gay men living in Texas.

The play’s director told Reuters he was stunned that prosecutors had chosen to go after him rather than pursue tax evaders and others blamed for driving Greece to near-bankruptcy.

“What I see is that there are people who have robbed the country blind who are not in jail and the prosecutor turns against art,” Albanian-born Laertis Vasiliou said.

If they are convicted, the men would face several months in jail. That’s not as dire as the situation faced by Alber Saber in Egypt, but still – to think that a country as advanced as Greece, and a member of the EU to boot, would prosecute people for religious speech and iconoclastic beliefs is beyond the pale.

Obama said that if any petition could gain 25,000 signatures in a month he’d consider it. Will he? I don’t know. You have to create an account to sign the petition, but I did so quite some time ago and haven’t yet received any spam because of it. Yes, most of the petitions look to be pretty far from a reasonable request, and as of this writing, there seem to be a lot of them that, if denied, will result in another Civil War. Like, “ALLOW ALASKA TO SECEDE FROM A DYSFUNCTIONAL UNION.” Yes, it’s all in caps. There seems to be one or more of those for each state. But seriously,  Here are a couple of Petitions you might consider signing.

  •  First is one that asks that the law be changed to require religious organizations to pay taxes. It has been posted for a week, and as of yesterday had 5,880 signatures. It’s short and sweet. It will remain posted until December 14 to gather the necessary signatures. Let’s blow the doors off the thing. This one is important.
  • The second one asks to remove references to God from our money and the Pledge of Allegiance. It expires December 12.  When I added my name, this petition had over 11,000 signatures and had only been posted since November 12. I don’t have a lot of hope that this will go anywhere since we have 533 people in the halls of Congress who claim to believe in that whole God thing, but the more noise we make, the more attention we’ll get. Right?
  • The third is one to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This one is getting close. It closes December 7, and as of this writing has more than met its quota. I’d like to see this one make a point, though, and garner lots of extra signatures.

A point about all three of these petitions: they all ask for laws to be passed or repealed, which is something only Congress can do. Just because the President is asked to take action does not mean that Congress will go along with it. The President can’t make or repeal laws by himself. He can issue executive orders, which set his administration’s policy and occasionally – and temporarily – take on the quasi-character of a law, but an executive order and a “pretty please” to his supporters in Congress is about the best he can do.

(This post originally appeared on WWJTD.)

Proudly powered by WordPress