Ah, Newt. In your never-ending pursuit of demagoguery, you hit precisely upon what Christianity is not about: the division of Us vs Them in the world, and the elevation of Us in the world over all that the world seems to favor Them.
But, then, sadly, your record seems to be all about yourself, and your religion is merely a convenient way to gather supporters to you. That whole "the first shall be last" thing? Doesn't seem to have made an impression. #ddtb
I tend to be suspicious of any erosion of religious or (more specifically, since the burqa is not specifically mandated by Islam, and is hardly universal among majority-Islamic countries) cultural freedoms. While I understand the security (which I've written of before) concerns here, and the social ones as well, it's also a very slippery slope toward what outward expressions of religious faith or cultural heritage will be "allowed" and which ones won't.
That it is being cheered by some of the more obnoxious nationalist elements in the Netherlands doesn't speak well of it either. #ddtb
It's not a good idea to have both traditional Muslims AND bikers mad at you.
Embedded Link
Dutch government Going ahead with Burqa Ban
People wearing burqas, balaclavas or all-in-one motorbike helmets in public in the Netherlands will soon face fines. On Friday, government ministers voted to outlaw all clothing which covers the face….
Since the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that this is illegal / unconstitutional activity, one does have to wonder why state legislatures keep trying this:
– Hoping that nobody will notice? – Hoping that SCOTUS will change its mind? – Because they hate scientists and want to make them cry? – As a defiant declaration of their mighty spiritual beliefs? – As a way to garner political support?
I wish they'd stop it, regardless. #ddtb
Embedded Link
Indiana Creationism Teaching Bill Moves Forward In State Senate
Indiana legislators are moving forward on a bill that would allow creationism to be taught alongside other theories in the state's public school system. The Senate Education Committee voted 8-2 Wednes…
The Obama Administration has, surprisingly, not backed down to a looser requirement, and will mandate most employers cover contraception in their health plans, with no co-pay/deductible. There will still be an religious dissent exemption for actual churches and religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of a given faith, but not for any company or institution that claims a religious affiliation.
Good. Family planning is generally beneficial to all — and reduces abortion rates as well. Nobody is required to use the benefit, so nobody's faith is imposed upon who doesn't make a decision of conscience themselves. I applaud the Obama Administration for pushing forward on this. A lot of people (myself included) thought they'd cave (again). #ddtb
I'm a quotations wonk (http://wist.info). Pulling elided phrases out of context to provide a meaning not originally meant irks the hell out of me.
In this case, we have the National Prayer Breakfast folk absconding with Jefferson's love for the moral code preached by Jesus to make it sound like Jefferson would be an enthusiastic modern-day evangelical Christian. Which he most certainly would not be (nor would he attend such a breakfast, I strongly suspect). #ddtb
While politeness might cause me to not take actions that unnecessarily cause offense, ultimately there is no "right" to not be offended, nor should there be. Dealing with offensive people and situations without pulling out a gun, or calling the police to do likewise, is a sign of emotional and cultural maturity.
While it's easy to point at the over-sensitive Muslims in this story, there are any number of Christians who are just as thin-skinned over their own sacred cows (or equivalent). And some of those groups have similarly sought to make "disrespect" of religion in general (and theirs in particular) illegal. #ddtb
Christians are, of course, hardly a minority in this country. Depending on the stats you choose, 75-80% of Americans identify as Christian. So for Christians to speak of themselves as a "minority" is disingenuous at best, and more likely a tribalist circle-the-wagons call-to-arms us-vs-them pity-the-poor-martyrs game.
Unless, of course, Scott's talking about Registered and Authorized True Christians(TM), the ones who hate gays, contraception, women, liberals, Muslims, furriners, taxes, secularists, atheists, poor people, church/state separation, judges, Mormons, Obama, illegals, and anyone who does't kowtow to their particular brand of selective Biblical literalism and dominionist ideals. In which case, yeah, they are a minority (though a very vocal one), and thank God for that. #ddtb
After the local public school board lost its case yesterday regarding a big prayer mural at a high school, some fine, upstanding, devout Christian students expressed their tolerance, Christ-like forgiveness, and other-cheek-turningness through their calm, considered, prayerful use of social media, discussing the teen atheist who filed the law suit over the mural.
If Jesus is weeping, it's not over the mural, I'm pretty certain of that. Heck, I'm ready to join Him. #ddtb
I have to assume that the Indiana state senators who introduced this claptrap aren't so stupid that they don't realize that this will get kicked out by the courts. Organized recitation of prayer in public schools was tossed out by SCOTUS fifty year ago.
So, instead, I have to further assume that this is (a) pandering to conservative Christian constituents and likely (b) an intentional attempt to demonstrate once again how Christians are being persecuted in this country by not being allowed to have organized recitations of their prayers in school. (Possibly there's also (c) the hope that the current SCOTUS will eventually overturn that previous ruling.)
Of interest is that the school or school board gets the power to decide which version of the Lord's Prayer to use — the particular translation and, presumably, whether to include the kingdom/power/glory bit at the end (which the Catholics, among others, don't).
Ironically, the Lord's Prayer in Matthew comes in the same chapter as Jesus injunction (Matt. 6:5-6) not to pray ostentatiously in public. #ddtb
Embedded Link
SB 251 – The Lord’s Prayer in School
In order that each student recognize the importance of spiritual development in establishing character and becoming a good citizen, the governing body of a school corporation or the equivalent authori…
On the one hand, I support the proposition that internal religious disputes should not be subject to judicial review. Is Pastor X teaching the "right" religious stuff? That's not what judges should be deciding. And, similarly, should Church Y be able to fire Pastor X for not following church rules? Yes, I think they should, even if that would seem to be discrimination on for religious reasons. Otherwise, what's the point?
On the other hand, I can see this as something easily abused (as the case in question raises). How bright a line is there in Roberts' suggestion of "teachers of the faith" and "employees we'll just arbitrarily label as ministers so we don't need to worry about job discrimination laws"?
In other words, I think the SCOTUS case is correct in principle, but I am concerned about how some churches may, quite un-Jesus-like, exploit that principle for less-than-holy reasons. #ddtb
The Liberty Counsel has issued a “Declaration of American Values” which they are, of course, trying to get everyone and their brother to sign off on. It is, of course, nice of them to assume that they know what “values” are truly “American,” so that they can “declare” them … presumably to those Godless Islamicist Socialist Hordes in other countries, as well to those Commie Secularist Liberals here who Hate America So Much (cough).
(Note: though some folks have raised this as something new in this pledge-happy election cycle, it actually dates back to 2008. It’s still very prominently displayed on their front page, though, and the rhetoric really hasn’t changed, so it’s fair game.)
What does this Declaration have to say? Are its Values truly American? Well …
First off, it’s not at all clear to me that the values embodied in the founding documents — the Declaration of Independence, as well as the (amended) Constitution of the United States — need to be supplemented or rewritten. So my assumption, going into this, is that it’s going to be a bunch of cultural and social issues that the LC would like to see become (or even, in some cases, restore as) “American Values.” Which is fine, but … well, get in line, guys.
””]
The Declaration of American Values
We the people of the United States of America, …
Note that this borrows, for the Declaration, the language of the Constitution. But the Constitution really was a statement by the People (capitalized), as it was voted on and approved by their representatives at the national and state levels. The Declaration used “we” language, but not in this way.
… at this crucial time in history, …
Is this time more “crucial” than other times in our national history? Really?
… do hereby affirm the core consensus values …
Well, that’s the trick, isn’t it? Are the following “core consensus values”? How do the LC know? If so, is an affirmation and declaration necessary? If not … well, then why call them that?
I know, I know — the Right is convinced that all the Bad Stuff in our country is due to tiny minority liberal populations on each coast that have somehow taken over this great nation, seizing the media and the government and somehow brainwashing the masses into despair, apathy, and tacit support for the Godless Liberal Agenda.
… which form the basis of America’s greatness, that all men and women from every race and ethnicity are created equal …
Well, I give them kudos for noting racial and ethnic equality, as well as sexual equality. I suspect some of the LC’s fans aren’t quite as sanguine about that, or would attach some caveats (including some of the clauses below) to that statement of equality, but …
… and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
As well as it’s Officially and Societally Sanctioned Happiness, of course.
We adhere to the rule of law embodied in the Constitution of the United States …
Good to know.
… and to the principles of liberty on which America was founded.
As long as it’s liberty to do the things we think people should be doing.
In order to maintain the blessings of liberty and justice for ourselves and our posterity, …
More Constitutional(ish) language.
… and recognizing that personal responsibility is the basis of our self-governing Nation, we declare our allegiance –
An odd use of the term. It’s usually allegiance (loyalty, devotion) to some noun (the flag, the nation), rather than to some verb; in this document, though, all the clauses start with “to secure”. That’s also an interesting choice of terms.
1. To secure the sanctity of human life by affirming the dignity of and right to life for the disabled, the ill, the aged, the poor, the disadvantaged, …
Does that include government programs to assist in preserving (with dignity) that life, including food, shelter, heat in the winter, and medical care?
Does providing dignity of life include allowing someone to end their life should they so choose?
… and for the unborn from the moment of conception.
I.e., personhood amendments.
Sorry, while acknowledging that abortion and contraception are thorny issues few bright lines, it’s difficult for me to recognize an unimplanted (or even just-implanted) pair or quartet of cells the same rights and consideration as a homeless person on the street, a sick person in the hospital, etc.
Every person is made in the image of God, …
Not every person believes that particular declaration.
… and it is the responsibility and duty of all individuals and communities of faith …
Or communities of non-faith.
… to extend the hand of loving compassion to care for those in poverty and distress.
I concur. Does that include governmental programs “to care for those in poverty and distress”?
2. To secure our national interest in the institution of marriage …
If we have a “national interest in the institution of marriage,” we aren’t doing much about it except debating whether we should allow gay folks to be included in it.
… and family by embracing the union of one man and one woman as the sole form of legitimate marriage and the proper basis of family.
I would suggest to the Liberty Counsel that current polling of the national population disagrees that this statement doesn’t reflect the values of most Americans.
3. To secure the fundamental rights of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children regarding their upbringing and education.
An interesting one — I’d like to know what, specifically, LC is concerned about here. What cases of these “fundamental rights” are in danger such that we need to secure them?
4. To secure the free exercise of religion for all people, including the freedom to acknowledge God through our public institutions and other modes of public expression …
I'm sure the Liberty Counsel would be tickled to have public institutions acknowledging Cernunnos
But how do we reconcile “acknowledging God through our public institutions” without imposing on those whose concepts of God (which the LC seems to want to secure freedom for as well) are different? Though it may shock and dismay the LC, not everyone in the nation of “all people” believe in Jesus, or believe in the Abrahamic God, or believe in a higher power whatsoever. When someone “acknowledges God through our public institutions,” they alienate, offend, and impose upon those fellow Americans that believe differently as much as how some Christians would be if someone acknowledged Allah, or Vishnu, or Zoroaster, or Odin, or the Horned God, or the Godless Universe through a “public institution.”
The LC’s statement only makes sense if everyone acknowledges the same God. I know they’d like to think that everyone does, but they don’t.
… and the freedom of religious conscience without coercion by penalty or force of law.
Yes, we should certainly make sure there are no legal restrains on public expression of religious beliefs
As soon as the LC agrees that Native Americans should be able to use peyote, Rastafarians should have free use of marijuana, that fundamentalist Mormons should be allowed polygamy, that Quakers should be allowed to exclude the Defense spending from their federal taxes, that Hindus should be allowed to exclude federal beef subsidies from their federal taxes, that people who believe that abortion and euthanasia are religiously acceptable are allowed to engage in them, and that human sacrifice is acceptable for descendants of the Aztecs … I’ll take this request seriously (i.e., as something other than a weasel clause to have some Christian town clerks not be required in their job to register gay couples for marriage, some Christian pharmacists be not required in their jobs to sell contraceptives, etc.).
In other words, the LC needs to demonstrate that it’s pushing for freedom of religious conscience for “all people,” not just for Christians (or Christians of a particular flavor).
5. To secure the moral dignity of each person, acknowledging that obscenity, pornography, and indecency debase our communities, harm our families, and undermine morality and respect. Therefore, we promote enactment and enforcement of laws to protect decency and traditional morality.
This would be a more compelling statement of American values if we didn’t see so much evidence that pornography is widely partaken of throughout America, including among folks who identify as conservative Christians.
So is the LC trying to say “America wants to be saved from itself,” or “We disagree with the majority, but we’ll call it an American value”?
If obscenity, pornography, and indecency were (a) subject to an agreed-upon national standard, and (b) agreed-upon as something bad, then it wouldn’t be an issue. But there is no national standard (heck, two next-door neighbors may have different views on what’s “indecent”), and it’s clearly not, at some vague level, not consensually agreed upon as wrong.
Everyone (well, nearly everyone, sadly) agrees that hardcore child porn is wrong. Some people think the SI Swimsuit Issue is obscene, though most people disagree. Who gets to decide?
6. To secure the right to own, possess and manage private property without arbitrary interference from government, while acknowledging the necessity of maintaining a proper and balanced care and stewardship of the environment and natural resources for the health and safety of our families.
This clause is as close to a Mom & Apple Pie statement as this Declaration has. I doubt many people couldn’t agree on it … but the devil, of course, is in the details. What would the LC consider “arbitrary interference”? What is “proper and balanced” in caring for the environment? Are new EPA regs on mercury levels in coal power plants right or wrong? Is protecting a given set of wetlands, even if privately owned, arbitrary or proper? Where’s the balance?
7. To secure the individual right to own, possess, and use firearms as central to the preservation of peace and liberty.
Well, that seems to be ensured at present by the Second Amendment as presently interpreted by the Supreme Court, so, questioning the proposition aside, there doesn’t seem to be much needed to “secure” this.
8. To secure a system of checks and balances between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches within both state and federal governments, so that no one branch – particularly the judiciary – usurps the authority of the other two, and to maintain the constitutional principles of federalism which divide power between the state and federal governments.
We have a system of checks and balances. The problem is that the Right doesn’t like how it works — i.e., that some judges have ruled against them, overturning particular laws. Note that the Left is pretty darned unhappy about some court rulings, too — SCOTUS in particular — but I don’t hear anyone there saying that the judiciary needs to be reformed, restrained or ignored.
We also have a federalist system. The problem is, again, that the Right doesn’t like how the country has grown, such that running a confederation of fifty sovereign nations doesn’t make sense, thus the evolution of recognizing more legal authority to the federal government.
But it would also be useful if the Right (including the LC) were consistent on this. So, for example, the Right (speaking broadly) loves letting states do what they want to do when they dislike the federal policy … but prefer federal laws when the states aren’t toeing the line they want. Abortion is a great example of this.
9. To secure our national sovereignty and domestic tranquility by maintaining a strong military; …
How strong is strong? Nobody’s promoting unilateral disarmament. Which weapon systems does the LC propose we need? How many simultaneous wars do we need to be able to fight at any given time? How does our military spending need to compare to other countries around the world — do we need to spend as much as the next nine top-spending countries, or could we get away with just outspending the next five?
… establishing and maintaining secure national borders; …
Mom & Apple Pie. Nobody disagrees with the principle, just with the implementation details.
… participating in international and diplomatic affairs without ceding authority to foreign powers that diminish or interfere with our unalienable rights;
Which plenty of folks would argue means “that requires us to do anything we don’t really want to do.”
… and being mindful of our history as a nation of immigrants, promoting immigration policies that observe the rule of law and are just, fair, swift, and foster national unity.
On first glance, it’s buzzwords. On second glance, it’s “No illegals!”
10. To secure a system of fair taxes that are not punitive against the institution of marriage or family …
Ah, the old “marriage penalty” thing. It’s amazing, given how punitive that the tax system is against marriage, that so many gays are looking to get married.
… and are not progressive in nature, …
No progressive taxes? Nice big break for the wealthiest and additional imposition among the least.
Or, put another way, 20% (let’s say) of the income of someone earning $30,000 a year is less in dollars than 20% of the income of someone earning $300,000, but it has a much greater impact on their standard of living, if not economic survival. That’s the idea of progressive taxation (and doesn’t even get into progressive tax brackets).
Given current polling, I would not say that this declaration is an American value.
… and within a limited government framework, …
I.e., the government shouldn’t be able to tax us more than we want or to pay for stuff we don’t agree with.
… to encourage economic opportunity, free enterprise, and free market competition.
Because government is all about money.
We hereby pledge our Names, our Lives and our Sacred Honor to this Declaration of American Values.
Interestingly enough, the original signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor. I guess that sounds too much like taxation for the Liberty Counsel.
So, is this a Declaration of American Values (vs. a Declaration of Liberty Counsel Values)? Well, since the LC are, presumably, American, they are the values of some Americans. But I’d say that the values presented here (or, rather, the hot button social/political issues presented as values) are of two categories:
Causes so generic that nobody could argue with them in principle (but which LC and the Right’s known interpretations of what they mean by it are, in fact quite arguable).
Causes that this particular American disagrees with.
A broad survey about the beliefs of some of the original Founders of the US and how they'd have a difficult time getting elected today.
To add a bit of nuance, it's not always clear what some individuals believed. Washington, in particular, was notably close-lipped about his faith. In some cases, that was specifically for political cover: Jefferson was frequently attacked as an atheist, for example (and thus his attempts to keep his abridged New Testament out of the public eye).
It's also worth noting that religious opinions held by the Founders changed over the years — from young adulthood to their old age. Some became more outwardly religious. Others became (we know through their writings) more skeptical.
And, of course, there were some Founders who wore their religion on their sleeves and were boosters for Christianity and, often, their particular denomination within it.
The bottom line of the article, though, is correct: in an era where presidential candidates (and presidents as well) are expected to be cheerleaders for their religious beliefs (especially Christians), these gents would have a hard time being elected. #ddtb
David Barton, pseudo-historian (and dolt), will soon be publishing The Jefferson Lies, wherein he tries to demonstrate that Thomas Jefferson was just as much of an evangelical, miracle-believing, Jesus-praising, conservative Christian as … well, Dave Barton claims to be.
Part of the debate is Jefferson's Bible. The first was an abridged version, with various teachings and events clipped from the Bible by Jefferson and organized by theme. The second (which survives – http://books.google.com/books?id=AmAJAQAAIAAJ) was an abridged version of the Bible with all the supernatural bits trimmed off.
How does David Barton somehow turn this into proof of Thomas Jefferson as Bible-thumping evangelist who would doubtless support Rick Santorum, et al., as candidates for the White House? Well, he doesn't do it honestly …
Jefferson's Bible
Rick Santorum 's near-miss in Iowa provides a reminder that, for many Republican voters (and not a few candidates), religion and politics overlap. If you need another reminder, though, consider this: …
"Now that we've allowed Bibles to be distributed, we'd like to change our policy on distributing religious stuff"
1. School gets donation of Bibles, allows kids to take them. 2. Pagan woman gets rightfully torqued. 3. School says, well, if you want to donate your own religious material, it, too, will be allowed. 4. Pagan woman tries to drop off material. 5. School announces that, no, it's in the middle of reviewing its policy, so no donations of religious material allowed.
Isn't that con_veeeen_ient?
Now, I suppose it's possible that the school suddenly realized the error of its ways — that it oughtn't to have been acting as a Christian religious material distribution center in the first place. More likely, I suspect it suddenly got cold feet about all the non-Christian material that might be coming through its doors. #ddtb
Some good historical bits about the history of school prayer and Bible readings … and how the nation was already going along the line of getting rid of them when the Supreme Court stepped in fifty years ago. #ddtb
Embedded Link
The Battle Over School Prayer and Why It Matters
To be sure, nonsectarian exercises remained the dominant practice in the nation's schools for many years, but a clear trend was underway. Education was being "secularized," to the chagri…
Churches that become dependent on government money are forced to compromise their beliefs. And if they refuse to compromise those beliefs while still taking government money, then the government is compromising the beliefs of other churches that believe differently … which in turn sets a precedent for those original churches to have their beliefs compromised.
Or, put another way, the Catholic Church (not the only ones, but the ones in a lot of the news at present) can't say, "Give us public money but let us follow our consciences as to how that money is or is not spent" (e.g., discriminating against gay couples in adoption agencies, or being exempt from providing insurance that covers birth control) and at the same time say, "You cannot spend public money on other things that some may approve of but which offend our consciences" (e.g., abortion). They cannot have it both ways, without fundamentally arguing that some consciences are to be valued more than others, which is not religious freedom, but religious discrimination … something that will only eventually bite them (and everyone else) on the political ass. #ddtb
"I have ALWAYS, for 30 years, prayed WITH (out loud) students on a daily basis in the 3 schools in which I have worked. I am proud to be a Christian presence in our local schools. … I am proud to be able to say I work there and have prayed with students there.'
Not so proud that she hasn't (perhaps upon advice of counsel) deleted those comments from Facebook.
Which irks me all the more. Because clearly she's proud of it when it's in conversation with folks she wants to make a point with, and she's proud to do it as a symbol of her dedication to Christ, and I can respect that. I can't respect her suddenly realizing that her pride is going to get her in professional trouble and so she better hide it. Sounds like a cock crowing … #ddtb
Not when it's Your Tax Dollars At Work, in my opinion.
'Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel and associate general secretary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, disagreed. “It’s true that the church doesn’t have a First Amendment right to have a government contract,” he said, “but it does have a First Amendment right not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs.”'
Taken to its conclusion, though, that principle results in no difference between the two clauses. If the state of Illinois said, "We won't allow Catholics to bid on these contracts," that would be clearly illegal religious intolerance. But the restrictions are on actions by a contractor that violate state law. If the Church was saying that, based on its religious code, it was only going to adopt kids out to Catholic parents in good standing, or to parents who only voted for certain candidates, or (in the case of other religious denominations) to parents who were white, or not of mixed race, or anyone but Jews, etc., then there'd be no question that the state should be able to reject their bid on that basis, or require them to change their policy as a condition of obtaining public money from all taxpayers.
Which, really, is the bottom line here: the issue is not whether Catholics should be able to discriminate however they want as a private adoption agency, but whether they should be able to get government funding (i.e., money from all the taxpayers) to do so, regardless of their practices. If the Church thinks its mission to children is that urgent and their moral teachings that inviolable, then they need to do so without asking for state funds.
All of this is a fine set of arguments in favor of church/state separation. Because here's a case where the church has become dependent on state financing ("Catholic Charities affiliates received a total of nearly $2.9 billion a year from the government in 2010, about 62 percent of its annual revenue of $4.67 billion"), and now it's face with either trying to make the state bend to church teachings ("give us the money, whether or not it would be legal for anyone else to do what we do") or bend church teachings to obey the state. A lose-lose for everyone, it seems to me. #ddtb
How dare the US government not pay for two Congressmen to mail their Christmas cards out using taxpayer money?! Obviously it's part of the War on Christmas and another step toward the triumph off the Islamic Atheist Anti-Christ! #ddtb
