Courage And Good Sense

This morning's ABC world news broadcast (at some hour) featured a San Bernadino city memorial gathering honoring those killed in the massacre. Visible front and center in the crowd was a young woman in conventional Muslim dress, her demeanor prayerful, her manner solemn. She had a choice to make, a decision about just what to risk, and in our society, no less rife with religious extremism than, say, Saudi Arabia, she put her own life on the line to make a simple declaration: typical Muslims do not approve of mass violence any more than, say, Christians, Jews or Unitarian Universalists. Kudos to her for her bravery.

My mind's eye looked back 14 years to Sept. 11, 2001. I lived in an apartment then. A young couple, my neighbors across the walkway at the time, were Muslim, she of American birth, he of Canadian. Neither their appearance nor their family name nor any audible accent distinguished them as being Muslim, but somehow, at the school attended by their two young sons, word got out that they were, and the kids... the older one might have been age 9... were harassed, both openly and (more troubling) also anonymously.

I regret to say this story has a happy ending: at the cost of both their jobs, and taking advantage of his Canadian birthright, the couple moved somewhere in Canada. Regret? Yes:  I grieve to see America lose potential solid, hardworking, honest and downright cheerful citizens. Happy ending? Yes: those kids did not deserve to be threatened with bodily harm because of their faith.

Yesterday and today, the young, visibly Muslim woman at the memorial gathering was courageous. Fourteen years ago, the young couple and their sons showed good sense. What kind of America do we put forth to the world, that any of these people have to reckon with consequences just for being who they are?

Here ends the lesson for the day. <sigh />.

Trump Is A Conservative An Anti-Religious Nut-Job

Well, I suppose he could be both, even at the same time. But anyone who claims to support the First Amendment view of freedom of religion in America can't go shooting off his mouth like this:

Businessman and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said the U.S. will have to "strongly consider" shutting down some of the country's mosques during a Monday morning interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

After the attacks that rocked central Paris and killed more than 100 people, the French interior minister called for the closing of radical mosques in France.

On MSNBC, host Joe Scarborough asked, if President, would Trump consider closing mosques?

"I would hate to do it but it would be something that you're going to have strongly consider," Trump said. "Some of the ideas, some of the hatred, absolute hatred, is coming from these areas."

...

Perhaps some of the problems do come from "these areas," but their solutions emphatically do not, at least in a nation that wants to be taken seriously in its claim to offer freedom of religious belief.

Religion is about belief, and belief is precisely what is protected by the First Amendment against government infringement.

All belief is protected. But not all action deriving from that belief is protected: your religion can lead you to believe in, say, ritual human sacrifice, but the First Amendment confers no right to perform such sacrifices; murder is still murder. Still, the First Amendment does not permit anyone to shut down meeting places of selected religious groups or treat them differently under law. Those who murder or threaten to murder can be arrested and charged under law, but their houses of worship may not be tainted by the fact that murderers attend.

I am not saying this is easy. We appear to have some evidence that some Muslims indeed want their ritual sacrifices in the name of their god, and are willing to misuse individual mosques in pursuit of such terroristic murders. But we still do not have a right to shut down places of worship because some bad people attend them and try to use them for nefarious purposes. If that were the case, I could surely compile a list of various Christian denominations whose most radical churches should be shut down... oh, never mind; don't get me off the topic here. The simple version is this principle: shutting down places of worship is not a valid or viable solution to the problem that some criminally or terroristically inclined people do their organizing at or through those places. The terrorists may of course be pursued— their religious institutions may not.

And besides, shutting down mosques is surely a self-fulfilling act. Shut down mosques, and you will justify acts by the very terrorists you wish to stop. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

And so we come full circle to the antireligious Mr. Trump. Those who are contemplating voting for him should think long and hard: Will the GOP always offer presidential candidates who will shut down only mosques? or could the practice extend to churches? or synagogues? or your very own house of worship?

Pope Francis Met Kim Davis In DC... In Secret

Only today was that fact acknowledged by the Vatican... and the Catholic Church's history of doing bad things in secret is too long and too egregious to assume anything other than that they, and probably Kim Davis, have something to hide in this case, not sexual in nature but nonetheless abusive of the goodwill of the Pope's American hosts. And to think I was just about to have some positive feelings toward the Church... what folly on my part. Sigh!

"... however, we will listen to Kim Davis,
but only in complete secrecy..."

Pope Francis Is Wrong About Kim Davis

In an AP article about a wide range of subjects covered in an interview of Pope Francis conducted on the papal airplane, the Pope, who more or less admitted not knowing the particulars of the case, sided with Davis, saying she had a right of conscience to refuse to issue marriage licenses to LGBT same-sex couples:

...

In another issue pressing on the American church, Francis was asked about the case of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk jailed for several days after she refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples despite the Supreme Court's ruling making same-sex marriage legal nationwide. Davis said such marriages violate her Apostolic Christian faith.

Francis said he didn't know the case in detail, but he upheld conscience objection as a human right.

"It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right," Francis said.

...

I'm sorry, but the Pope is mistaken. It happens to every human person, especially when that person is shooting from the hip based on incomplete knowledge, and that's exactly what the Pope did in this case.

The freedom of religion conferred on American citizens by the First Amendment to the US Constitution is a freedom of belief, and that freedom is, quite rightly, very nearly absolute.

But any associated freedom of action is, necessarily, limited by ordinary secular law and common law. If that were not so, what possible effectiveness could any law have on the undesirable activity it was intended to control? If all of us could summarily rewrite or reinterpret any law in our minds and then act on that reinterpretation, the result could be, and probably would be, chaos in society.

The Pope also mistakes what it means to be a conscientious objector. America's history of conscientious objection, to war, to legally enshrined racial injustice, etc., requires that the objector be willing either to step back from the confrontation... in Davis's case, resign from her job in which her nonfeasance is illegal... or to go to jail for the illegal behavior s/he commits in the process of objection. That is the means by which an ordinary American citizen can have an impact on a law which the courts have declined to rule unconstitutional.

(ADDED: The issues in which exceptions have been carved out in law for religious conscientious objection have resulted in IMHO grossly unfair treatment of individuals whose only substantive difference is what they say they believe. A good friend of mine from middle school through college was a member of a religion which the US government recognized as having a conscientious objection to war. While most Unitarian Universalists I know object on principle to war, and I certainly did and do, there is no broad objection enshrined in the religion itself; it is left as a matter of conscience to the individual UU. As a result, my friend had an automatic draft exemption, while I was subject to the draft. I do not begrudge him his exemption, but I certainly begrudged my non-exemption. I later obtained a deferment for my left knee, wrecked in an accident when I was 13 and still troublesome to this day; eventually that deferment was commuted to an exemption. Sigh!)

In other words, the conscientious objector can, in fact, be a law unto herself or himself... but only at a price, and that price is to accept the punishment society's law imposes on him or her. It's the only way conscientious objection could possibly work without leading to unlimited lawlessness.

Davis clearly doesn't understand that (or, in my opinion, just wants to make trouble). But there is no excuse for the Pope; he should educate himself on the workings of such a fundamental principle as conscientious objection.

Donald Trump And Religious Freedom

Sara Jerde at TPM succinctly summarizes Trump's problem:

During the town hall in New Hampshire, the audience member also said that President Obama was a Muslim. Trump was criticized for not defending Obama and Muslims to the audience member.

CNN "State of the Union" host Jake Tapper asked Trump on Sunday if he had a responsibility to "call out the hatred."

"Well we could be politically correct, if you want, but are you trying to say we don't have a problem," Trump said. "I think everybody would agree. I have friends that are Muslims. They're great people, amazing people. And most Muslims, like most everything, I mean they're fabulous people, but we certainly do have a problem."

Tapper asked him to clarify what the "problem" was.

"Well, you have radicals that are doing things," Trump replied. "It wasn't people from Sweden that blew up the world trade center, Jake."

I'm going to address Trump's problem... he's almost right when he says "we certainly do have a problem," but actually, HE "certainly do[es] have a problem" ... with an excerpt from Wikipedia on Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and his religion:

Jindal was raised in a Hindu household. He converted to Christianity while in Baton Rouge Magnet High School. During his first year at Brown University, he was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church. His family attends weekly Mass at Saint Aloysius Parish in Baton Rouge.

Raised Hindu; converted Christian in a magnet high school; baptized Roman Catholic and attends weekly Mass... now THAT is religious freedom, as protected in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. That Constitution does NOT say an American may practice "any Christian religion," nor indeed does it require an American to practice any religion whatsoever, or to refrain from practicing any religion whatsoever, as long as s/he does not violate ordinary secular laws (e.g., forget any notion you may have of engaging in ritual sacrifice of humans; that's still murder).

So Jindal, a stalwart Republican if there ever was one, gets to practice his religion... indeed, his long series of quite different religions over the years... and that's his right under the First Amendment. But according to Trump's audience member, uncorrected by Trump, a Muslim has no similar right: the audience member is certain that America's problem is specifically Muslims, not specifically terrorists.

The late great Thomas Jefferson would have been very surprised to hear an American citizen eliminate that right for Muslims (Jefferson called them "Mahometan," but demonstrably knew what and who they were), and with equal certainty intended the First Amendment to protect them. I guess Trump, like so many right-wing nutjobs, is only selectively fond of our nation's founders, and he disapproves of Jefferson and his liberality toward a wide variety of religions.

Religious Diversity in Symbols
(UU Flaming Chalice: 2nd row, 3rd symbol)

How do you know Trump, if elected, would not at some point disapprove of your religion, if you happen not to be Christian (as indeed I am not; I'm a Unitarian-Universalist)? What would he do about his disapproval? The question is not far-fetched: a few years back, an appointed elected Republican official in Texas issued an order removing tax-exempt status for Unitarians, whose membership historically included three or four American presidents. The order was quickly rescinded under considerable public pressure, but Texas GOPers would do it again in a millisecond if they had the chance.

What's your religious freedom worth to you? More to the point, what's YOUR religious freedom worth to Trump?

RWNJ Kentucky County Clerk Ordered Jailed For Contempt Of Court Over Refusal To Issue Gay Marriage Licenses

Katherine Krueger and Tierney Sneed at TPM:

Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses, has been found in contempt of court and taken into federal custody.

According to AP, U.S. District Judge David Bunning said Thursday that Davis would be held in jail until she complied with the previous court orders to begin granting the marriage licenses.

...

And thus it must be in a society where the rule of law prevails over the rule of wo/man. If people start choosing which judges' orders they obey and which they do not, the required balance between freedom and order in society will quickly collapse in favor of wanton freedom, and the laws of the land will become utterly unenforceable.

Someone could do Kim Davis a favor by explaining the workings of civil disobedience to her: the person engaging in civil disobedience expects to go to jail for what s/he does; it cannot be otherwise, because s/he is violating the law. If Ms. Davis wants to decide in her own mind what the law means and act accordingly, but not be jailed for her lawbreaking, then she is asserting that she is some kind of queen, or at least a princess: not in America, baby, not in America.

Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz had some interesting things to say in Krueger and Sneed's article (which you really should read before proceeding)...

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) also rushed to Davis' defense: "I think it’s absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberties," he said on CNN.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) issued a statement calling for "every lover of liberty to stand for Kim Davis." “Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so," he said.

(Sigh! the RWNJs always require explanation of the simplest matters of rights and responsibilities.)

Sen. Paul, it's not for exercising her religious liberties that Davis is being jailed: those are liberties of belief and expression, not of action in contravention to the law, especially as in this case where the law couldn't possibly be clearer after the Supreme Court's refusal to support Ms. Davis's position.

And Sen. Cruz, I am at least as American as you are, and the nation I fight for is NOT "founded on Judeo-Christian values" because though I am religious, I am not a Christian, whether you like that fact or not. And I'm pretty sure you don't, you un-American bastard.

Just for good measure, Mike Huckabee chimed in:

... former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said, "Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubts about the criminalization of Christianity in this country."

No, ex-Gov. Huckabee, it "removes all doubts about the criminalization of" criminal behavior, and most of us don't have any problem with that. Sit down and STFU!

Right-Wing Nut-Job Welfare: More Lucrative By Far Than Selling Pizzas, And A Splendid ‘Christian’ Example For Easter

AP via TPM:

Indiana Pizza Shop Still Raking In Money, Over $840K

WALKERTON, Ind. (AP) — A crowdfunding campaign for an Indiana pizzeria that came under fire after its owners said their religious beliefs wouldn't allow them to cater a gay wedding has raised more than $840,000.

Memories Pizza in Walkerton is closed indefinitely and its operators say they've gone into hiding.

...

Look, muthafuckas: religion is about belief; bigotry is about action. No aspect of genuine religious freedom can ever allow you to override secular law in pursuing a business which is a  public accommodation. And if you're Christian, and you're getting fucking rich by exercising that same bigotry, you're defying just about everything Jesus ever said: you're transforming your own moral exemplar into his exact opposite. You're setting a fine example for the rest of us, eh?

Happy Fv<king Easter, muthafuckas.

What Freedom Of Religion? Two Daily Kos Posts That Make Me Glad I Just Renewed My ACLU Membership

The part of America's Constitution that we today call the First Amendment begins by getting right to the point:

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

This should be a
very small intersection indeed!

This isn't conceptually difficult: you (Congress, and through the Fourteenth Amendment, state legislatures) can't enact laws that require a government at any level to prescribe a specific body of religious belief which everyone must affirm, nor enact laws that use taxpayers' money to support such a belief, or support the activities of a religious institution or denomination.

But more and more members of Congress, state legislators, state governors, etc., all of them Republican, appear to be incapable of comprehending this simple prohibition: if it's religious, you can't use the government to compel it, prohibit it, fund it, etc.

A couple of examples turned up on Kos in the span of the past week alone. Please read them for a better idea of what these dominionists seem determined to do:

• House Republican introduces bill to require religious pledge of military cadets
• She's back! Arizona legislator suggests church attendance should be mandatory

You can say of these people that they are simply unclear on the concept expressed in the "free expression" clause of the First Amendment. I do not believe that. They understand it just fine; they simply don't like it... and they intend to try to violate it (or pretend to try to violate it), as a song-and-dance for their fundamentalist Christian constituents. In other words, they are un‑American.

Got that? Good! Now do what you can to put a stop to it. For example, I keep my ACLU membership up to date. When the great State of Texas tried a few years ago to prohibit my denomination from using its state tax exemption, which to comply with the First Amendment must be available to every religion, the ACLU set them straight. In court!

WTF Is The Matter With America Today?

masaccio at FDL tells us what the religious RWNJs and other nutjobs truly believe:

...

It’s a mirror image of the US. The “Other” is the problem. It isn’t the unjust distribution of wealth, it isn’t the exploitation of the worker by the filthy rich, it isn’t unequal schools, it isn’t poverty or any other structural condition. It’s witches. It’s demons. It’s unholiness. It’s impurity. It’s smoke.

It isn’t fixable. The most you can hope for is bottling up that rage and fear in fewer and fewer people. Instead the media stokes those fires. Self-ordained ministers tell people that it’s sin that cause fires and floods and earthquakes and eclipses. Rage freaks like O’Reilly and Limbaugh and the incomparably stupid Hannity tell their listeners that the end times are coming. Politicians like Lindsey Graham shriek that terrorists are coming to kill them while they sleep. These pre-moderns are now in control of both the House and Senate, and the Supreme Court.

...

No fxxking kidding! These people may or may not hearken back to the actual Dark Ages, but as masaccio said, they damned surely missed the Enlightenment altogether. Yet they have every intention of taking it away from those of us who didn't miss it, and they have the money backing them to do the taking. Welcome to today's America... where the medieval get medieval on your buttocks.

Town Of Greece, NY Adopts Exclusive Council Meeting Invocation Policy — No Atheists, No Religions Not Common In Town

Sahil Kapur at TPM:

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court gave its blessing to local governments that want to open their public meetings with religious prayer.

It was a victory for the town board of Greece, N.Y., which stressed that it was fighting not just for Christian prayer but for the right of all people express their views regardless of their faith. In a 5-4 ruling along ideological lines, the Court ruled against the Jewish and atheist plaintiffs, who argued that the practice violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Less than four months later, the town of Greece has adopted an invocation policy that excludes non-religious citizens and potentially shuts out faiths that aren't well-established in the town, according to a top secular group.

Seeking to "avail itself of the Supreme Court's recognition" that government prayer is constitutional, the new policy restricts opening remarks to "assemblies with an established presence in the Town of Greece that regularly meet for the primary purpose of sharing a religious perspective."

Translation: atheists and agnostics need not apply. And unless the board clerk decides that your faith has an "established presence" in the New York town of fewer than 100,000, you may not deliver an invocation.

...

So... all religions are equal, but some are more equal than others. I don't know the status of UUs, but I have a feeling I would not be asked... nay, not be permitted... to say the invocation at a Greece, NY town board meeting.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution is dead; long live the Establishment Clause. And you know that not a damned thing will be done about it. I mean, what do you think you're going to do about it? pass a constitutional amendment? [/irony]

Greenwald: NSA Targets Five American Muslim Leaders For Surveillance, Apparently Because They Are Muslim

Via Kevin Gosztola at FDL's The Dissenter, we have Glenn Greenwald and Murtaza Hussain at The Intercept revealing yet more NSA activity in violation of the First Amendment's freedom of religion guarantee. Here's Gosztola's summary:

...

Glenn Greenwald and Murtaza Hussain of The Intercept have published a much-anticipated story revealing five prominent Muslim-Americans the National Security Agency and FBI spied upon. The surveillance, which primarily appears to have involved monitoring their emails, was conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The five individuals are: Faisal Gill, a former member of President George W. Bush’s administration and a Republican Party operative; Asim Ghafoor, a public relations consultant, lobbyist, lawyer and advocate for the rights of American Muslims; Agha Saeed, a professor who has mobilized American Muslims to become involved in the American political process; Hooshang Amirahmadi, founder and president of the American Iranian Council, who has done considerable work on American policy toward Iran; and Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which is the largest Muslim civil rights organization in America.

The national legal advocacy organization, Muslim Advocates, reacted, “This report confirms the worst fears of American Muslims: the federal government has targeted Americans, even those who have served their country in the military and government, simply because of their faith or religious heritage.  The report clearly documents how biased training by the FBI leads to biased surveillance.”

...

Oh, and Gosztola notes this bit of raw, offensive incivility:

On a visceral level, The Intercept included a section from July 2005 instructions on how to format internal memos “justifying surveillance.” The NSA did not use “John Doe” in the place where the name is supposed to be. They used “Mohammed Raghead” instead.

And this from Greenwald and Hussain:

“I just don’t know why,” says Gill, whose AOL and Yahoo! email accounts were monitored while he was a Republican candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates. “I’ve done everything in my life to be patriotic. I served in the Navy, served in the government, was active in my community—I’ve done everything that a good citizen, in my opinion, should do.”

Please read both articles. Apparently, in today's America, being both a Muslim and a civil liberties activist are enough in combination to ensure you will be spied upon by the most invasive arm of your government. If the Hobby Lobby case wasn't enough to signal to you the death of the First Amendment's establishment clause, this revelation should finish the job. If you're not Christian, as I am not, you have a choice: keep a low profile... or expect your government to spy on you. Once again, Thomas Jefferson turns in his grave...

Your Hobby Lobby Reading For Today

• masaccio at FDL, The Political Decision in Hobby Lobby (be sure to read the comments)
• Leonard Pitts, Jr. at Miami Herald, Bad day for women’s rights, reproductive health

This decision will impact, wholly negatively, literally millions of women of reproductive age. And that's not counting its influence on the Supreme Court's future interpretation of the distinction between "freedom of religion" and "an establishment of religion." Apparently, to Just‑Us Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas, surprisingly along with Just‑Us Breyer, the former concept perversely equates to the latter. Handmaid's Tale, here we come.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sharia, Or, GOP House Candidate Asserts First Amendment Doesn't Apply To Muslims

"Believe what I believe... or else!"

Kos's Hunter tells us of Jody Hice, Republican candidate for Georga's 10th district House seat, pointing us to Eric Dolan at Raw Story:

A Republican candidate seeking to represent Georgia’s 10th U.S. House district believes that the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty does not apply to followers of Islam.

“Although Islam has a religious component, it is much more than a simple religious ideology,” Rev. Jody Hice wrote in his 2012 book It’s Now Or Never, according to Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “It is a complete geo-political structure and, as such, does not deserve First Amendment protection.”

The House candidate also believes the Muslim Brotherhood is secretly infiltrating the United States in a plot to impose Sharia law on the entire country, a conspiracy theory he shares with Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Louie Gohmert (R-TX).

...

Yes, that's just what we need... more Representatives like Gohmert and Bachman.

This approach is not new. A few years ago, a Republican appointed official in Texas ruled that Unitarian Universalism was not a religion and therefore would not receive exemption from state taxes. That one didn't fly, either, but the assertion served its purpose of reminding the religious nut-jobs of Texas to hate us a little more. After all, for GOPers, that's what the First Amendment is about, isn't it... hating everybody who doesn't worship the way they do.

My answer to these fuckheads is simple: you may hate me and people of my religion, but you WILL, b'Gawd, tolerate us.

How To Drive Someone Away From Christianity — Indeed, Any Kind Of Religion

Regular readers know I'm something of a skeptic regarding formal, church-based religion: I have never been a Christian, and as a UU, I exercised the broad latitude extended by that religion to its fullest extent. But heretofore I have been, in my own estimation, very tolerant of other people's religious beliefs, even as I am utterly disinclined to engage in anything one could reasonably call "faith" myself: if something can be demonstrated satisfactorily by proof, example or repeatable experiment, it is at some level "true"; if not, I'm not interested... that thing may be harmless, but it is also useless.

On that basis, I've been tolerant of the religious beliefs of fundamentalist evangelicals I know. But the nature of fundamentalism has been radically altered by the likes of preachers like John MacArthur, pastor of Grace Community Church in the San Fernando Valley and radio Bible-thumper extraordinare:



When a "man of God" asserts that parents must disavow their own children, "turn them over to Satan," etc. just for being gay, that's where I must definitively part ways with him: frankly, anyone who is that ready to "turn [adult children] over to Satan" apparently perceives very little difference between God and Satan, and very little difference between himself and a prison guard prepared to inflict torture.

Condemned to an eternity
of Really Bad Hair
and Fraktur Type

In short, if God is not good or if God not only condones but encourages hateful behavior, what possible basis is there for worshiping Him/Her? Right... there's no basis whatsoever. We don't need any more hatred in humanity's already mean‑spirited, afflicted world. And so I say to Hell, perhaps literally, more likely figuratively, with damnation-fixated preachers like MacArthur.

Aside: FWIW, I've been damned to Hell by so many self-satisfied fundy Christians in my lifetime that if you wish to comment for that purpose only, you're wasting your time.

Afterthought: here's Ricky-boy Perry saying that being gay is like being alcoholic. This isn't the first time he's said that. Consequently, this isn't the first time he's been wrong about it. Alcoholism comes in several flavors, some of which are amenable to various kinds of treatment, and there are compelling health reasons for addressing treatable alcoholism. OTOH, as straight guys go, I've probably known more gay guys (and a few gals) than most, and not only do all of them assert that gayness is intrinsic, inborn, but I've yet to see any compelling reason for attempting to modify the behavior... certainly not because a radio preacher or a GOPer state governor thinks you should.

(H/T Christian Dem in NC at Daily Kos.)

Supreme Court: A 5-4 Ruling Worse Than Bush v. Gore?

I guess it depends on what you think America needs protection from, and by whom. Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog:

Stopping just short of abandoning a historic barrier to religion in government activity, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled on Monday that local governments may open their meetings with prayers that are explicitly religious and may turn out to be largely confined to expressing the beliefs of one faith.

Narrowly defining what is not allowed in such prayers, the Court said they may not be used to praise the virtues of one faith and may not cast other faiths or other believers in a sharply negative light. Courts have no role in judging whether individual prayers satisfy that test, but can only examine a “pattern of prayer” to see whether it crossed the forbidden constitutional line and became a form of “coercion.”

The majority clearly moved the “coercion” test to the forefront of analyzing when government and religion are too closely intertwined. The alternative test — whether government action “endorsed” a particular faith — was nearly cast aside as taking too little account of the role of religion in America’s history and civic traditions.

...

So... just how far did they go? Kennedy's opinion, treated as controlling because it bridged a gap between two conflicting opinions of the Court's majority, was described by Denniston as follows:

Treating the Kennedy opinion as controlling, because it spoke to a middle-ground approach between blocs of Justices who wanted to go further in one direction or the opposite, this is the constitutional prescription it provided for legislative prayers:

• First: Such prayers are not confined to meetings of Congress or state legislatures, but may also be recited in the more intimate and familiar setting of local government meetings.
• Second: The prayer portion of the meeting must be conducted only during a ceremonial part of the government body’s session, not mixed in with action on official policy.
• Third: The body may invite anyone in the community to give a prayer and (if it has the money) could have a paid chaplain. The officials on the body may also lead the prayer.
• Fourth: The body may not dictate what is in the prayers and what may not be in the prayers. A prayer may invoke the deity or deities of a given faith, and need not embrace the beliefs of multiple or all faiths.
• Fifth: In allowing “sectarian” prayers, the body’s members may not “proselytize” — that is, promote one faith as the true faith — and may not require persons of different faith preferences, or of no faith, to take part, and may not criticize them if they do not take part.
• Sixth: The “sectarian” prayers may not disparage or discriminate against a specific faith, but officials need not go to extra lengths to make sure that all faiths do get represented in the prayer sessions — even if that means one faith winds up as the dominant message.
• Seventh: Such prayers are permissible when most, if not all, of the audience is made up of adults — thus raising the question whether the same outcome would apply if the audience were a group of children or youths, such as the Boy or Girl Scouts, appearing before a government agency or a government-sponsored group. (The Court did not abandon its view that, at public school graduations or at events sponsored by public schools, prayers are not allowed because they may tend to coerce young people in a religious way.)
• Eighth: A court, in hearing a challenge to a prayer practice, is confined to examining “a pattern of prayers,” and does not have the authority to second-guess the content of individual prayer utterances. In judging such a pattern, the proper test is not whether it tends to put forth predominantly the beliefs of one faith, but whether it has the effect of coercing individuals who do not share that faith.

(Bolds mine. - SB)

Well, there goes the First Amendment, at least for public meetings of legislatures...

AFTERTHOUGHT: This is almost a "Catholics vs. Jews" ruling, with the exception of Sotomayor. I wonder if we will begin to see religious bloc voting in more rulings by this religiously extremely lopsided Court.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Here is the ruling (.pdf).

MORE PERSONAL AFTERTHOUGHT: A brief discussion with Stella shortly after I completed this post reminded me forcefully just how difficult it is for even the most broadminded of American Christians to perceive a problem with the constant presence of explicitly Christian prayer preceding a government event in a society that at least theoretically advocates genuine freedom of religion.

I am a UU... Unitarian Universalist... and the omnipresence of Christian prayer at nongovernmental events is starkly apparent to me. If Christian prayers begin also to precede Houston City Council meetings, HISD School Board meetings, various county government events, METROLift advisory committee meetings, etc., I am certain, justifiably or otherwise, that I will feel excluded. (ADDED: If you think UU is an obscure religion, please note that three or [arguably] four US presidents... John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore and [arguably] Thomas Jefferson... were Unitarians. That's about 9 percent of America's presidents.)

Stella sees it as no big deal. I confess I was surprised, but I should not have been: people brought up Christian and still surrounded mostly by Christians are very likely to see "Christian" as "normal," and fail to react at the consistent omission of prayers by people of other religions. Let me re‑emphasize: Stella is about the least prejudiced Christian I know, which means her non‑reaction is even more to be expected from Christians less involved with people of other religions. If you are inclined to think non‑Christians need no explicit legal protection from the normalization of Christianity in the periphery of governmental events, I am here to tell you: we do, in fact, need such a shield. Until now, we assumed with good reason that the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, provided that shield. Now I'm not so sure.

'Corporate Religion': It's Bad For Business, And Of Course For Civil Liberties

Emily Martin and Jennifer Pizer at TPM engage in some serious reflection on what it would mean if corporations were allowed to defy laws based on their purported "corporate freedom of religion": it's not a pretty picture. Consider, they say, what would happen if the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, allowing them effectively to overrule the ACA requirement that employer-provided insurance plans must offer women access to contraception at zero co‑pay:

...

The proponents of the Arizona bill explained in interviews that they introduced it so that businesses could refuse to provide service to gay or lesbian customers. But the bill itself never mentioned sexual orientation; the primary thing it did was change Arizona’s existing religious exemptions law to vest corporations, partnerships, and other for-profit businesses with religious rights. In doing so, however, the bill would have given these for-profit businesses a license to ignore many state and local laws if the businesses claim the laws burden the business’s religious beliefs, unless applying the law in question to the business in that particular circumstance is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling state interest.

...

In other words, if Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood win with this argument, the Supreme Court will have reinterpreted longstanding federal law to adopt at the national level a key goal of Arizona’s bill, empowering corporations across the country to discriminate against their customers and employees in many contexts based on the corporation’s ostensible religion, whether or not that discrimination would otherwise be illegal. As a result, if the Supreme Court decides an arts and crafts chain is capable of religious beliefs and thus can have a religious right to deny its employees insurance coverage for birth control, then airlines might be able to assert a religious right to pay men more than women, bakeries could assert a religious right to deny employees insurance coverage for vaccinations, hotels might be able to assert a religious right to refuse rooms to customers based on race, and restaurants could assert a religious right to refuse to serve gay couples. 

Given the national furor when the Arizona legislature passed such a proposal, it would be troubling indeed if following Governor Brewer’s veto, the Supreme Court rejected decades of settled federal law to provide a corporate right to discriminate in the name of religion. Arizona’s governor did the right thing by recognizing that SB 1062 represented a radical and divisive approach that was wrong for the state, as did legislatures in Mississippi and Kansas when they set aside similar bills. The Supreme Court should not reshape federal law to craft a similarly radical and divisive rule for the nation.

(Note: the bill referred to is a recent Arizona bill to vest corporations with religious freedom; it was vetoed by Governor Brewer.)

At least two other states have abandoned their attempts to pass such a law, in part because, civil liberties aside, it would be really bad for business. And indeed it already has been bad for Hobby Lobby's business: Stella's multimedia artworks (like the one that recently won a place in a juried exhibit, one called "Freedom of Speech" which overlooks our workspace right now) require a variety of craft materials, and she has stated that she will no longer trade with Hobby Lobby until they relinquish their claim to a corporate "freedom of religion" and its application in dodging duly passed laws. One customer gone... how many more will depart in the face of such a draconian change in the meaning of personal freedoms?

---

AFTERTHOUGHT: some may ask whether I am accusing the CEOs of these corporations of operating in bad faith... claiming corporate freedom of religion as an excuse to discriminate against customers and/or employees in matters that have little if anything to do with religion. Yes, I am... and yes, they are. And if the Supreme Court lets them get away with it, so is the Supreme Court.

Six Catholics, Three Jews To Decide Cases Involving Contraception

Here. Let's just say I'm not worried about the three Jews. And I am absolutely certain that three of the Catholics (Roberts, Scalia and Thomas) will rule based on their personal religious beliefs, clear precedent be damned. Can those of us who support the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employer-provided health insurance plans must provide women's contraception with no co‑pay rely on the other three Justices, also all Catholics, to rule based on their understanding of law?

Just who runs the country, anyway? I even like Pope Francis, but I do not believe he should have six votes on our Supreme Court in matters of women's rights.

Florida Town Bans All Holiday Displays On Public Property To Keep Out Festivus Pole, Then Changes Rules And Puts Up Manger Scene

If you ever wondered what Christian Floridians learned from the story of Christmas, here's the answer: lie, cheat or steal to keep out the competition. From Raw Story:

In 2012, the mayor of Deerfield Beach had given in to atheist Chaz Stevens and the American Civil Liberty Union, allowing an 8-foot-tall Festivus pole made of Pabst Blue Ribbon cans to be placed alongside a manger and Menorah. Festivus is a secular holiday created by the television show Seinfield, which some atheists celebrate on Dec. 23.

But to prevent Stevens from putting up the pole again this year, a city spokesperson told the Sun Sentinel that it had banned all holiday displays that it did not put up itself. Many thought that it meant that there would be no Nativity scene because the display belonged to a private business.

...

In the meantime, a Nativity scene reappeared at Deerfield Beach Fire Station No. 1.

Chaz expressed his outraged in a video posted to YouTube late last week.

...

Yep, that's Bible Belt Christianity for you. "Let us prey [sic]..."

Santa's Satan's On His Way!

AP via TPM:

Oklahoma Satanists Seek To Put Monument On Capitol Steps, Next To Ten Commandments
Sean Murphy – December 9, 2013, 7:10 AM EST

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- In their zeal to tout their faith in the public square, conservatives in Oklahoma may have unwittingly opened the door to a wide range of religious groups, including satanists who are seeking to put their own statue next to a Ten Commandments monument on the Statehouse steps.

The Republican-controlled Legislature in this state known as the buckle of the Bible Belt authorized the privately funded Ten Commandments monument in 2009, and it was placed on the Capitol grounds last year despite criticism from legal experts who questioned its constitutionality. The Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit seeking its removal.

But the New York-based Satanic Temple saw an opportunity. It notified the state's Capitol Preservation Commission that it wants to donate a monument and plans to submit one of several possible designs this month, said Lucien Greaves, a spokesman for the temple.

...

The satanists assert their monument will be of good quality, in good taste and yes, children-friendly. One proposal is a monument in the shape of a pentagram (please see a rather elaborately decorated pentagram, above). Another proposal features an interactive display for children; who could object to that?

The simple fact is that "good" Christians who want to advance their own cause at the expense of other religions may shoot themselves in the foot, without even applying for a concealed-carry permit.

Please excuse me for a moment while I ROTFLMFAO: idiots in Texas of the same kind as these dominionists in Oklahoma attempted to deny the Unitarian Universalist Association and its member churches a tax exemption notwithstanding the fact that historically four US presidents have been Unitarian. The idiots in Texas got their butts kicked by a federal court; one can hope the same fate will meet the OK legislators.

Look. This is simple. Either all religions are protected from government intervention and excluded from government participation or advocacy, or that First Amendment thingy doesn't mean (ahem) a damned thing. It's all or none; state legislatures can't pick and choose which religions to protect. Got it? Good! Oh, and by the way...

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

Will Supreme Court Create A 'Citizens United' Allowing Corporations To Circumvent Obamacare Birth Control Mandate, Claiming Religious Freedom?

Does a corporation resemble an individual human being in having protected freedom of speech, including freedom to make effectively unlimited campaign contributions? In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled in effect that yes, corporations do have free-speech rights.

How far does this concept go? Does a corporation have freedom of religion, the religion of course being that of the owner, including the freedom to refuse to comply with the birth control mandate in the Affordable Care Act? A divided D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier in this month that corporations do have such a right (The Hill's Regwatch blog has a good summary; Kaiser Health News has links to many articles about the ruling).

♱♱♱♱♱♱♱♱♱

Which one has a religion?

♱♱♱♱♱♱♱♱♱

Today, the Supreme Court hears the case. I don't mean to sound cynical, but I think I know how that will come out.

Back in the Saint Ronald Reagan era, before federal courts including the Supreme Court became so thoroughly dominated by men (sic) nominated by Republican presidents, conservative friends and colleagues (I actually had a couple of conservative friends back then) complained about something they called "agenda‑based adjudication," a process by which courts ruled in ways that allegedly favored a particular (Democratic) political agenda. It was never clear that that actually took place, but that was the allegation.

Today, there is no room for doubt that agenda‑based adjudication is as real as any other basis on which controversial issues are decided in the Supreme Court. At some point, by the look of it, not only will corporations have the rights of individuals, but only corporations will have such rights. It's a truly sorry trend.

---

UPDATE: according to Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog, "The Court did not expedite the briefing schedules for the new cases, so presumably they will be heard in March."

AFTERTHOUGHT: Shouldn't the six (6) Catholics on the nine‑member Supreme Court all recuse themselves, as every one of them has presumably the same religious aversion to contraception as the plaintiff?