anatheist.net

Ohio Signs Test Theists’ Tolerance, Maturity

Atheist Under Ur Bed — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:28:43 +0000

And it looks like at least some have now earned themselves a failing grade:

“Godless” Billboard Relocated Due To Threats (Jessica Brown/The Cincinnati Enquirer; Nov 12)

CINCINNATI: A billboard that reached out to those who don’t believe in God lasted less than 48 hours before threats forced organizers to move it, they said.

Billboard company Lamar Advertising tore down the billboard at the intersection of 12th Street and Reading Road in Over-the-Rhine Thursday morning due to what the United Coalition of Reason – the billboard’s sponsor – termed “multiple, significant threats” to the property owner. Lamar re-erected the sign that same day on a billboard tower along the Sixth Street Viaduct in Queensgate. The sign faces traffic traveling west from downtown toward Delhi and Price Hill.

The billboard contains the phrase “Don’t Believe in God? You are not alone,” and lists the web site of the Cincinnati Coalition of Reason, a coalition of atheist and other “free thinking” groups in Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky in which members don’t believe in any god.

This is the first time the group has moved a billboard in this year’s campaign. It’s launched 14 prior billboard campaigns in cities throughout the country including this week in Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus.

“It (the threats) caught us totally by surprise,” said Fred Edwords, director of the Washington, D.C.-based national organization. He said the report of “multiple, significant” threats came from Lamar.

The situation indicates a need to continue the outreach in Cincinnati, said Shawn Jeffers of Hyde Park, co-coordinator for the local chapter.

“It proves our point, that bigotry against people who don’t believe in a god is still very real in America,” he said in a news release. “Only when we atheists, agnostics and humanists come together and go public about our views will people have a chance to learn that we too are part of the community and deserve respect.”

The billboards are among 1,400 in Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky owned by Lamar Advertising. It leases the land that most of those billboards stand on, including the one on Reading Road.

The United Coalition of Reason paid Lamar $3,875 for the 30-day billboard which was visible to southbound traffic on Interstate 71. It was erected Tuesday afternoon. On Wednesday afternoon, Lamar informed the group of the threats.

“(The landowner) called and said he was receiving threats and wanted it removed or he’d remove it himself,” said Tom Fahey, vice president and general manager of the company’s Cincinnati office. “We went ahead and moved it. We didn’t want him up there climbing on a ladder, trying to get it down.”…

Lamar does not notify property owners of billboard content, but “we comply with community standards so we usually don’t have any real issues,” said Fahey. He didn’t think this one would cause such controversy. “It’s pretty innocuous in my mind,” he said of the ad.

Lamar owns the land that the Queensgate billboard sits on so Fahey doesn’t expect any issues with the new spot.

Add it to the ever-growing list of recent attempts to illegally interfer with the free speech rights of atheists.

(And be sure to click on that Columbus link I included in this story if you’re interested in seeing a few live examples of the sort of intolerant mindset that might prompt someone to phone in a threat against those who dare to publicly remind others that not everyone wants or needs an imaginary friend in the sky.)

If God’s Bank Goes Belly Up…

Atheist Under Ur Bed — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:00:33 +0000

… do any theists grasp the lesson?

The Bank That God Built Shuttered By State (Andy Birkey/The Minnesota Independent; Oct 26)

In 2000, evangelist Chuck Ripka says he had a vision from God: He was to start a faith-based bank in Otsego, and with the backing of the Lord his Riverview Community Bank could not fail.

In fact, God told Ripka that he would create such an “acceleration” in the bank’s success that Ripka would be called to counsel secular banks on his business plan.

On Friday afternoon, the state of Minnesota closed the bank and the federal government took over its assets.

The bank had seen initial success but after getting tied up in bad real estate loans, it turned its last profit in 2007. Ripka left the bank in 2006 and former Secretary of State and current member of the Minnesota House Mary Kiffmeyer was at the helm when the feds took over the bank on Friday. She is president and director of the bank’s holding company, American Eagle Financial Corp.

The bank had $108 million in assets at the end of August and this summer, 90 percent of the bank’s loans were for real estate. Riverview was cited in June for being undercapitalized [among numerous other things].

It is the fifth bank to fail in Minnesota this year. The bank’s assets will be taken over by Central Bank of Stillwater. According to the FDIC, the bank will likely cost the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) $20 million.

When it was founded, Riverview was looked at by evangelicals as the center of a revival in the Elk River area. In The Elk River Story: Transforming the Spiritual Climate of a City — a 2004 book written by Elk River townspeople, including the mayor, spotlighting the Christian explosion in that city — Ripka penned a chapter about Riverview:

The Lord said, “I’m going to cause such an acceleration of this bank, that you will be invited to speak to secular groups about what has made the bank successful.” The Lord told me, “Chuck, if you will do the things I’ve called you to do, I will take care of the bottom line.” Two weeks before the bank opened up, I prayed about what should go on the cornerstone of the bank. Then the Lord told me to put these words on the cornerstone “In God We Trust.” The week before the bank opened up the Lord told me to pastor the bank. “Take what I have taught you and pass it on to others,” He told me. “Teach others within the bank to pray for the customers. Not only will your customers make physical deposits in your bank, but you will also make spiritual deposits into you customers.”

The bank allegedly had this picture on display:

I’ve sent a prayer to Jesus asking for his reaction to all this.

So far, he’s being even quieter than Ripka.

Hmmmm…. Does anyone know if non-resident deities are protected by the Fifth Amendment?

Do they have the right to remain silent lest they incriminate themselves?

Should we hold it against them if they exercise that right?

Ripka did not return a request for comment about the bank.

Some People are Just Stupid

James Tracy — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:27:59 +0000

Honestly.

My home town of San Diego is putting up its own “atheist” billboard that reads, “Don’t Believe in God? You are Not Alone.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, as similar signs have done elsewhere, some people are upset about it. Even angry. You can leave it up to Fox News to find these people and generate a “controversy” around them. Take for example their reporting of this billboard, with the almost-humorous-if-it-wasn’t-so-sad title Freeway billboard has controversial message. You can read the short article or just view the video version of it below:

Fox claims that the billboard has a controversial message. Of course, there is nothing at all controversial about the fact that if you do not believe in God then you are not alone. Such a message is no more controversial than its opposite, “Do you believe God? You are not alone.” So at least in that sense, the title is just plain stupid.

While there may be nothing inherently controversial about the message what is really interesting (or aggravating) is a few of the featured reactions to the astonishing revelation that some people who live in their midsts don’t believe in God:

“I’m a Christian, and I was raised to believe in God,” Jessica Wleh of Mission Valley said after being shown a mockup of the billboard. “If I saw something like this, I would be very angry, extremely angry!”

Angry about what, Jessica? That some people do not agree with your religious views? Why should that make you angry? After all, you claim to believe in God because you were raised to believe in God. Shouldn’t you instead be angry at your parents for dictating to you what you should and should not believe?

And then we have Brian, who wins the award for the most ironic statement:

“It’s real negative,” Brian Burns of North Park told Fox 5. “I think that’s half of the reason of what’s wrong with the world now: people like that with these crazy beliefs.”

Brian, I agree holding crazy beliefs is a real negative in our world. What crazy beliefs to atheists hold, now? That a man can walk on water and rise from the dead? Nope. That God is One but also Three? Nope. That people possess disembodied spirits that will either be rewarded or punished after death depending on ones willingness to suspend disbelief and accept Iron Age mythologies as true? Nope. That a cracker will invisibly change into the flesh and blood of Jesus if you utter the correct Latin phrases over it? Nope again. Gee, Brian, maybe you are criticizing the wrong group of people!

Do Christians Really Trust Their God?

Atheist Under Ur Bed — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:53:11 +0000

Do they really believe in and trust the power of prayer and other “holy” rituals?

Or do they tend to believe in and trust science and technology far more – even in church?

Here’s a story that seems to point towards a pretty clear answer:

Hi Tech Holy Water Calms Flu Fear (The BBC; Nov 11)

Catholic churches in Italy are installing automatic holy water dispensers to help reduce the risk of spreading swine flu.

The outbreak of the H1N1 virus has led many churches to suspend the tradition of having holy water in open fonts into which people dip their hands.

The new machine works like an automatic soap dispenser, squirting water when a hand is passed under the tap.

Inventor Luciano Marabese says he is being inundated with enquiries.

About 30 people have died in Italy after catching swine flu.

Father Pierre Angelo Mota, from Capriano Briosco, north of Milan, said squirtable holy water had surprised some of his parishoners at first.

“It has been a bit of a novelty,” he said.

“People initially were a bit shocked by this technological innovation but then they welcomed it with great enthusiasm and joy. The members of this parish have got used to it,” he added.

Churchgoer Marta Caimmi agreed.

“It’s great,” she said. “Thanks to this we are not worried about catching swine flu. It is the right thing for the times.”

The design of the dispenser is similar to a traditional water font, but with an infra-red light that reads the presence of a hand and squirts holy water onto the person’s fingers.

Mr Marabese says he is receiving hundreds of emails from all over the world requesting information about the product.

“Some people had stopped dipping their hand into the holy water font as they were afraid of infections,” he told Reuters.

“Some people even pretended to touch the water but they just touched the marble edge of the font. I think that it is a pity to lose our traditions.”

Milan’s cathedral was among the places of worship to officially suspend the use of communal water fonts.

“After the news that some churches – like Milan’s cathedral – are suspending the use of holy water fonts… demands for my invention rose to the stars,” added Mr Marabese.

Of course a huge stream of prayers more or less along the lines of “Please, Lord, protect me from your perfectly designed microbes!” have almost certainly risen to the stars as well.

The main difference seems to be that Mr Marabese actually exists and is eager to respond to the demands of people.

It’s a difference that even devout Christians seem to recognize, however loathe they might be to admit it….

Evolution v. Creationism: the Politics, the Science, the Debate

James Tracy — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:12:07 +0000

The first event, titled Evolution v. Creationism, took place on November 6 at the National Press Club. Over seventy people attended, including the three esteemed panelists, Eugenie Scott, Barbara Forrest, and Kenneth Miller. All three panelists were intimately involved in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case that found Intelligent Design had no place in science classrooms.

The panel was in honor of Darwin’s 200th birthday, the 150 year anniversary of On the Origin of Species, and was funded, in part, through the Darwin Day Foundation.

Yet Another Act Of Vandalism

Atheist Under Ur Bed — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:34:38 +0000

Atheist Billboard Hit Again (Matt Loveless/KLEW-TV; Nov 6)

MOSCOW, Idaho: An atheist billboard in Moscow has become the target of vandals for the second time in three weeks.

The billboard is on the corner of Jackson Street and U.S. 95 on the south end of the city. It reads, “Millions are Good Without God.”

The American Humanist Association (A.H.A.), which sponsors the billboard, quickly replaced it after the word “without” was blacked out on October 21.

Moscow Police said sometime between 1:00 and 3:00 a.m. Wednesday [Nov 4], the word “without” was hit again, this time leaving the sign reading, “Millions are Good With God.”

The A.H.A. calls it a religiously-motivated vandalism, attempting to silence a minority viewpoint. A.H.A. President David Niose called the continuous vandalism ironic, saying, “Some individuals are committing criminal acts while apparently claiming that their religious view of the world leads to good behavior. It’s not a very convincing argument on their part.”

Moscow Police said they check the area up to seven times a night, and are now recommending Lamar Outdoor, the property owner, keep the lights on around the clock.

The A.H.A. Plans to replace the billboard again, but has not decided whether or not they’ll go with the same design.

A press release from the AHA included these additional comments:

“This is not just vandalism, it is religiously motivated vandalism which attempts to silence a minority viewpoint,” added Niose. “Everyone, not just humanists, should be concerned about such acts.”

“I’m disturbed that this happened again,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “Two consecutive crimes in a town where the last incidence of billboard vandalism was years ago makes it obvious that humanists and our message are being targeted.”

To see a photo of the vandalized sign, click here.

To learn more about the first time this sign was defaced as well as about other attempts to silence atheists, see the entries I posted on Oct 26 and Oct 29.

Monday School: Bible Absurdities

Atheist Under Ur Bed — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:34:07 +0000

: Image by Travis Seitler via Flickr

This is part of an ongoing series that will be posted each Monday. You can read the introduction to this series by clicking here.

Monday! Time once again for – yep, you guessed it – Monday School. It’s STILL “The Rational Corrective To All That Nonsense They Tried To Teach You Yesterday!” but by all means feel free to think of it as “The Sensible Alternative To Christian Superstitions” if you prefer.

Today’s Lesson: Does ANY Of The Bible Make Sense?

Gee, I don’t know. Every time I pick it up and go looking for a sensible claim or statement, an absurdity lodges in my eye and I have to run to my bathroom mirror in hopes of removing it before infection sets in. (NOT an easy thing to do, by the way, considering I’m usually laughing so hard, my sides hurt.)

Here are a few of the absurdities I’ve removed from my eye in the past and now have tightly sealed in a jar atop my desk:

1) Genesis 1:14-19 details the third day of creation. It basically says that gOd made the sun, the moon, and the stars to cast light upon the earth and to help us tell day from night and mark time. Unfortunately for the author of Genesis, it turns out that fewer than 10,000 stars are visible to the naked eye. According to a report that appeared on CNN last summer, that leaves approximately 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars that are not visible from earth except with telescopes that have only been around for the last few hundred years. In fact, astronomers now estimate that there are more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches all over the world. (In contrast, you could probably hold 10,000 of those grains in one hand.) If gOd created stars to cast light on earth for our benefit, it would seem that he only succeeded about once in every 7,000,000,000,000,000,000 attempts. Not very good for an allegedly omnipotent deity, is it?

2) Cain. The Bible’s story of what it claims to have been the first human born on earth is full of things that’ll make you twitch if you think about them. Here are a few:

A) According to Gen. 4:12 , Cain is condemned to be a fugitive and a vagabond for killing his brother Abel, yet Gen. 4:17 tells us he actually settled down and founded a city.

B) Gen. 4:14-15 tells us that when Cain complained to gOd that someone would find and kill him for his crime, gOd put a mark on him to protect him. This would seem to contradict Gen. 9:6 (“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man”) and those Bible passages that claim gOd’s laws are just and eternal. It would also seem rather pointless, since the only other two people on earth at this point seem to have been Cain’s parents.

C) Gen. 4:15 actually quotes gOd as saying “whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” Does that mean gOd will kill that person seven times? Neat trick, that. (And isn’t it odd that a gOd who went to such extraordinary lengths to protect a murderer couldn’t lift a finger to protect the innocent Abel in the first place?)

D) Gen. 4:16 tells us that “Cain went out from the presence of the LORD….” Exactly how does one escape the presence of a being who’s allegedly everywhere? (“The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good” – Proverbs 15:3 )

E) Gen. 4:17 tells us that Cain found himself a wife and had a child with her. Where the heck did SHE come from? Was she Eve? Was she Cain’s heretofore unmentioned sister? Was gOd creating people on the sly? You tell me – the Bible sure doesn’t!

3) According to Gen. 6:2-4 “the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose” and had children with them. The mind boggles. Isn’t Jesus gOd’s only son? Are we supposed to believe that these other sons had carnal desires and human-compatible sex organs? Are we supposed to believe that these gOds or demi-gOds could find true happiness with mere mortal females – and in the days before modern antiperspirants, no less? On what basis might Jewish people and Christians say these passages are true and divinely inspired while rejecting all those Greek myths about Zeus and his affairs with human women? Maybe DNA testing might prove whose gOd fathered which people, eh?

4) Gen. 6:6 tells us that “it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth….” This is merely the first of many passages in the Bible that tell us that gOd repents.Other passages, however, tell us that gOd does not repent. Go figure.

5) Gen. 6:19 and 7:8-9 tell us that Noah took the animals into his ark two by two. After the Flood waters abate and it’s safe to leave the ark, what’s the first thing Noah does? He builds an altar and sacrifices some of the animals to gOd (Gen. 8:20 ). DOH! Kinda like firefighters celebrating the end of the Chicago Fire by burning down part of the town that escaped the flames, isn’t it? Except that Chicago didn’t become extinct in the process.

6) Incredibly, Gen. 8:21 tells us that gOd didn’t smite Noah for killing and burning some of the last remaining animals on earth – no, gOd allegedly liked the aroma! Mmmmmm! Nothing like smoke from a dead animal to gladden the heart of a perfect, loving being, I guess. Personally, I would have settled for a card.

7) Gen. 22:1 tells us that gOd tempted Abraham. James 1:13 , however, assures us that gOd doesn’t tempt any man. (And in Malachi 3:6 , gOd himself tells us he doesn’t change, so don’t try the old “that was then, this is now” argument.)

8) “And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him [Moses], and sought to kill him” (Exodus 4:24 ). Well, gee – you’d think that an omniscient being would have picked someone else to be his prophet rather than pick one he’d end up wanting to kill, wouldn’t you? Unlike other cases where gOd wanted someone dead, however, gOd is foiled this time when Moses’s wife, Zipporah, takes a sharp stone and circumcises their son. Apparently that’s all it took to assuage the lOrd’s murderous anger – the cutting of an innocent infant’s penis. Sick, isn’t it? Too bad Moses didn’t have a lawyer as shifty as Paul was when he presented us with the “real” meaning of circumcision in Romans 2:25-29 – the poor kid might have been allowed to sleep in peace.

9) “As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. When Moses’ hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up-one on one side, one on the other-so that his hands remained steady till sunset. So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword” (Exodus 17:11-13 ). Well, gee – how long before the Bible-addled Bush puts a stone under Rumsfeld and orders Cheney and Powell to keep his hands up in a desperate attempt to win in Iraq?

10) “Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven’” (Exodus 17:14 ). Hee! The fact that the Bible mentions Amalek and has kept the name alive for centuries kinda makes a liar out of gOd, doesn’t it?

11) “….the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation” (Exodus 17:16 ). Wait – didn’t gOd just promise to completely blot Amalek out? How can you have war with someone “from generation to generation” if you’ve blotted them out? (What’s the penalty if the lOrd swears to do something, then doesn’t, anyway? Do all the other gOds and lOrds get together and beat the crap out of him or do they just mutilate the penis of one of his close relatives?)

These are just a few of the things that make me shake my head and laugh when I pick up a Bible and leaf through it. Did I miss your favorite chuckle-inducing passage? Please share!

Conversation on Church & State

James Tracy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:26:16 +0000

My previous post on the “In God We Trust” lawsuit inspired the following exchange of views on Twitter (thanks to Twitlonger) between Adam4004 and myself – which is probably fairly representative of the kinds of disagreements that these cases invoke:

Adam4004: So you reject originalism & wish judges to legislate from the bench?

I am not a lawyer but to the extent that one can unambiguously determine original intent I do not believe that we should be absolutely wedded to it. Since circumstances and perceptions change over time the original intent may no longer be completely desirable. Interpretations of the Establishment Clause have been expanded over the years but I do not see that as a detriment to either the Constitution or our society. I prefer a broader meaning to the ‘establishment of religion’ than the original intent because that to me seems to make more sense today.

What is certain, however, is that I am completely and utterly unimpressed by some of the specious arguments propounded to shield such things as the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance – like the notion that either are not religious or merely ceremonial. If they were either of these things then religious people would presumably not care in the way that they do when these things are challenged. I can see straight through such arguments – so should you.

Adam4004: So then really the Judicial Branch can simply decide as unelected personages to create new laws based on what they feel should be our country’s focus & ideals correct?

Those arguments are irrelevant. They don’t violate the intent of the establishment clause & thus aren’t unconstitutional. If judicial activists want a different meaning we have a process & way to create that which the founders put into place.

Well, no, of course not. The complete opposite extreme does not follow from my comments.

It is not a different meaning. It is an expansion of that meaning. “Establishment of religion” can be read narrowly or broadly.

Adam4004: It can be read to claim atheism is a religion. Anything can be read broadly to mean whatever anyone wants. The problem is that the authors clearly didn’t intend the meaning that is now being shoehorned in under the guise of being broad etc. Here’s the deal. Reading the constitution broadly to say something clearly not the actual intent is legislating from the bench & neither the right or left should be engaging in it.

Heres the problem. The idea that they would have meant this to be applied to something like in god we trust is clearly silly. If this is something we need to add they gave us the procedure to do so. Simply declaring…oh well…times have changed & what those dead guys actually meant really isn’t important or relevant do let’s simply expand it to mean something the constitution actually didn’t mean because a handful of unelected people think it’s time it meant that. Let’s not go through any actual process. Let’s just say this is what it should have meant.

Not at all. See, to go back to your original question, what I do not agree with is an interpretive inflexibility that is too overly strict to not allow any room for expansion or refinement if deemed necessary. Sure, the framers did not want the United States to establish an official state religion akin to what England has. But religion can be “established” in other ways that they may or may not have originally agreed with or even conceived – the fact that those 200+ year dead people did not view the world exactly the way that we do now is not a good argument for narrowly limiting ourselves to their intent. Nothing that I have argued for violates the spirit of that intent to keep the state out of the religion business, so in my opinion you are being completely unreasonable. An atheist motto is no more acceptable to me than a theist one.

I suppose my general point here is that something can be in the spirit of the original intent even if it is not, strictly speaking, the original intent as literally conceived. While this may be a fine line, I believe it is one that is worth treading. The founder’s idea to separate religion and government in the physical sense was a great one – but I also believe that separating religion and government in the symbolic sense is a reasonable application of that great idea.

Adam4004: Also. Those same guys you argue wanted to keep state out of the religion business appointed a chaplain to open each session of congress with prayer among other things. To say they would have intended this is to do damage to any intent.

Except if they had actually intended that they would have actually done that in practice. Clearly they intended that no denomination be established as the state religion. Arguing that the very people that based their argument for freedom on the existence of a creator in a foundational document would be against havig the term God on the money etc is silly.

Yes, I am well aware of that. But the meaning of “establishing religion” today and for us is not the exact meaning of “establishing religion” as it was then. And that is clearly (to me) for the better, not for the worse. Yes, it is completely silly to argue that the founders would have been against putting “In God We Trust” on money. But that is not the argument. I don’t care if they would have objected because that alone does not make it right. The founders are not paragons of virtue. The argument is that we need to and can formulate an arguably superior interpretation of that original meaning that takes into account the interests of a much broader segment of the population that the founders would (presumably) not have cared about. I have no doubt that they did not have in mind the interests of atheists. The principle they established was sound but needs to be applied in a broader way to truly and fairly live up to it. So long as that application remains reasonably within the bounds of the spirit of that intent then I see that as a good development, not a bad one.

Adam4004: Once again. You are admitting that the establishment clause clearly was not meant to be interpreted in the way you want. You are basically saying we create a new meaning by sime declaration. Of course the founders weren’t paragons. That’s why they created the process by which we can change the constitution. Don’t like the 3/5 idea? Change it. Etc. But we are saying we no longer need the ammendment process. Within the existing ones 9 people can create a right not even remotely intended when written by simply reinterpreting…even when everyone knows they most certainly didn’t mean or would have wanted that.

What I concede as historically accurate is that the framers probably did not interpret the clause in as broad of form. However, I disagree with you that that means that it cannot and should not be interpreted in that way. I agree that the judicial branch should not be engaged in applying the constitution in ways that were “not even remotely intended.” I disagree that what I am arguing for is “not even remotely” related to that original intention. It is not the exact intention, but it is still related to it. As I already argued it is not only within the spirit of the that intention but a superior application of it that recognizes that today’s society should not confine ourselves to the same prejudices as our forefathers. It is neither an entirely new meaning nor a simple declaration (once you start reading the case law you will realize that it is anything but simple).

The courts have worked this way for a long time. A fact that is often overlooked is that the due process clause in the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution opened the way for the Bill of Rights to be applied directly to the states. The original intention was that the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government only. Any particular state within the union could, in fact, establish a state religion! The idea that only “Congress can make no law” has been superseded by that very process you cite. Given the broader applicability of the Bill of Rights as interpreted through the Fourteenth amendment, it should then become no surprise that since the 1940s the Establishment Clause has indeed been more broadly applied. Did the founders originally intend for the Constitution to prohibit state legislators from banning the teaching of evolution in public schools for religious reasons? No. But the Supreme Court ruled (1968) that the First and Fourteenth amendments combined now means that it does.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

In retrospect it seems that we are both employing a philosophy of constitutional application that happens to be most beneficial to our desired ends – I don’t know if there is any way past that fundamental point. As an historian, I recognize that meanings change over time and what was sensible for the founding fathers may no longer be strictly desirable in today’s society. After all, we are talking about the Bill of Rights and interpreting the Bill of Rights in a way that expands rights to greater numbers of people (like the non-religious community).

What do you think? How should we handle Establishment Clause cases?

Flabbergasted

James Tracy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:21:15 +0000

A lawsuit against the the use of the motto “In God We Trust” on United States currency was recently dismissed. The case is Kidd vs. Obama, et. al. filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The decision is very short and you can read it in full here. Basically, the judge took the easy way out and simply cited previous (unfavorable) court decisions concerning the motto as evidence (and precedence) that no First Amendment case was made plain.

Near the end the judge gives the follow quotation as some kind of smoking gun from Aronow vs. United States (9th Circuit, 1970):

It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a government sponsorship of a religious exercise.

It is inconceivable to me how that statement could have been convincing then and still be convincing now. I suspect that this has become a convenient bluff to hide behind to avoid becoming the focus of the wrath of many religious people – which is something that any judge would have to endure who ruled against the motto despite it not (allegedly) having anything to do with religion!

Let’s parse this.

The motto has nothing to do with the establishment of religion.

The motto is clearly a religious statement – an affirmation that we (as a nation) trust in God. Therefore, it is plainly an establishment of religion over non-religion. No non-religious person places his or her trust in God.

The motto’s use is patriotic and ceremonial rather than religious, therefore it does not represent government sponsorship of religion.

How stupid do I look? In the 1950s, when the motto was official adopted and put on all currency as a matter of policy, ‘patriotism’ meant believing in God because not believing in God was associated with communism (or Stalinism). In other words, being patriotic necessarily meant being religious. So you cannot honestly tell me that its patriotic value means that it has no religious value. Of course it has religious use. Affirming one’s trust in a God is a religious exercise, plain and simple. Claiming that it is not a religious exercise is itself a bigger insult to religious believers than it is to atheists.

It’s time to get real here and time for our cowardly judges to cut the bullshit and call a spade a spade.

The Buddhist Who Needs Any Proof You Can Spare

Atheist Under Ur Bed — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:26:00 +0000

Cat Banned From Visiting Buddhist Bank Robber In Jail (Allan Hall/The Telegraph; Nov 3)

Peter Keonig, 46, is serving five-years for armed robberies in Werl, Germany.

He went to court this week demanding the right for his cat Gisela to be allowed to visit him in jail “because she is my dead mum”.

Buddhists believe that people come back as other animals after death. He said: “I know it is mummy. She looks after me just the way she did. I need to see her like other prisoners see their wives and children.”

But the court turned him down. “While we respect the religious freedom of individuals, the accused has not been able to furnish proof that his deceased mother has been reborn in a cat. Therefore, the request for visiting rights for the feline is rejected.”

The court did say he would be allowed to write to the cat.

Hmmmm, well… maybe if Peter’s mother had been a police dog, he would have turned out better….