Wondering on Wednesday (v215)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where to start with today's wondering, I wonder? 

How about with the retirement of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman? He was one of the people who responded to a Congressional subpoena and testified before representatives in the House impeachment hearings, compared to the lesser men who responded, well, lesser-ly. 

Here's an excerpt from a statement released by his attorney.

You'll recall that Senator Tammy Duckworth, a veteran, was holding up promotions to top positions, pending a response from Defense Secretary Mark Esper on whether it was going to go ahead or suffer at the hand of the president's interference.  We've learned that Vindman's promotion had been approved by the Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy, and by Esper, and it was set to go to the president by the end of the week. 

So, here's the wondering: Who has confidence that Trump wouldn't try again to interfere, I wonder? Not me.  And who thinks that Esper or McCarthy would leave their positions, as Vindman did, in the face of the president's interference, if it came, I wonder?  Again, not me.  

What else am I wondering about today?  How long before a business owner declares a deeply held moral belief for not requiring their employees and customers to wear a mask? Or, conversely, one declaring a deeply held moral belief that masks must be worn, no matter what, by everyone on their property?  And what happens when an anti-masker demanding their constitutional rights to spend money runs into a business with a constitutional right to have convictions?  What's that court case going to look like, I wonder? And let's have one of the aggrieved parties be LGBTQ - that'll really put a mess in the gears, don't you think? 

Attorney General Snitty Snitty Bill Barr has said he doesn't think that law enforcement is systemically racist, but he does "think it is a widespread phenomenon that African American males, in particular, are treated with extra suspicion and maybe not given the benefit of the doubt.  I have to wonder what, in practice, the difference is between the two?  Any takers? 

What else?  Mary Trump's book is coming out early - goody for us, or something like that. The race is on to get snippets of it out in the public domain, so we've "learned" that Trump had someone else take the SATs for him, unless of course he didn't; we learned that lying was the rule of thumb, and apologies and showing emotion were not.  That, I don't think we'd argue with. And why did Mary write the book?

Donald, following the lead of my grandfather and with the complicity, silence and inaction of his siblings, destroyed my father. I can’t let him destroy my country.

So. What's the wondering here?  Simply this: if anyone reads the book, I wonder if they'll believe what they've read? I'm guessing that's another no, but I could be wrong. My guess is this book will be about as exciting as learning about Trump's $130K payouts to the porn stars - 'wow' followed by 'eww' followed by 'ick, or something.  The other wondering on this? of all the folks who have written about Trump, which one will win the book sales race? 

And finally, it seems that the administration may be contemplating banning TikTok from America, even if we don't know for sure why. On the one hand, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said it's to protect American data and national security.  The president said it's being considered because of the coronavirus. The real reason might be something entirely different: Kellyanne Conway's daughter is apparently a #neverTrumper and a pro #BLM TikTok activist (unless she's just being a normal teenager).  So, which is it, I wonder - national security, coronavirus, or Claudia Conway?

What are you wondering about tonight?

Making America What, Again, Exactly?

I just saw this article this morning, and to be honest I thought it must be an April Fool's Day post -- except that it's from Texas, first of all, and it was posted a few days ago, so no, it's real. Here's the eye-catching headline.

Texas Republicans advance a bill 

that would allow doctors to refuse LGBTQ patients

Looks about right, for Texas, doesn't it?  'Extreme conservatism' I think is how my Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo described them, a few years ago. 

Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives, who are right to life, pro-assault weapon, anti-gay? Because if that is who they are, and if they are the extreme conservatives they have no place in the state of New York, because that is not who New Yorkers are. 

According to the article on LGBTQ Nation, the bill

...would allow state-licensed professionals to refuse to serve LGBTQ people if they cite their religion has advanced out of committee in the Texas senate.  Senate Bill 17 would prevent state licensing agencies from denying or revoking licenses from professionals - including doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, and even barbers - if they claim to be following a "sincerely held religious belief."

The bill's sponsor, Senator Charles Perry, said

Living our faith does not stop when we start to work. When we see what we may perceive as immoralities, those people who hold those beliefs should be able to defend their faith...without fear of losing their livelihood and their license. 

It's OK though - apparently law enforcement officers have to keep their religious beliefs in check, and even doctors will have to set their beliefs aside for "life-or-death" situations. From the text of the bill,

This section may not be construed to: (1) authorize a license holder to refuse to provide a medical service within the scope of the person's license that is necessary to prevent death or imminent serious bodily injury; or (2) limit any right, privilege, or protection granted to any person under the constitution and laws of this state and the United States.

Guess we'll not see Texas signing on to that whole 'health care is a right' thing, I'm thinking. And of course, who gets to determine what medical services fall under the 'necessary to prevent death' part of the law? I'd argue that chemotherapy may be considered  as being 'necessary to prevent death' but I'm sure that's not what Texas is thinking. I just think it's noteworthy that 'imminent' only applies to serious bodily injury...

But what - there's more.

Religious Liberty vis a vis the National Anthem

Let's consider for a moment that silently taking a knee and remaining quiet for the two minutes it takes to get through the national anthem at a football game is not a protest, but is instead an expression of the deeply held belief that racism, discrimination, and the killing of blacks by white police officers are all morally reprehensible acts and as such, they must be brought to light so that others will recognize them for what they are, will not participate in them but will instead condemn them, thereby empowering us to eliminate these acts from society.

If we look to the press release issued last week by US Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III on federal protections for religious liberty, it seems it might make things significantly more interesting, and significantly more difficult for white billionaire NFL owners, the white billionaire president and white billionaire advertisers to pressure or take action against the athletes who act on their freedom of religion.

Here are some excerpts from the press release (emphasis added):

Our freedom as citizens has always been inextricably linked with our religious freedom as a people. It has protected both the freedom to worship and the freedom not to believe. Every American has a right to believe, worship and exercise their faith....

As president Trump said, "... (this administration) will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied or silenced anymore."

..Trump promised that this administration would 'lead by example on religious liberty,' and he is delivering on that promise.

According to the Sessions memo, which can be accessed from the press release, the following "principles of religious liberty" and their supporting statements are true:

Religious liberty is not merely a right to personal religious beliefs...it also encompasses religious observance and practice...

The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one's religious beliefs. 

Americans do not give up their freedom of religion by participating in the marketplace, partaking of the public square or interacting with government. 

Government may not restrict acts or abstentions because of the beliefs they display.

Except in rare circumstances, government may not treat the same conduct as lawful when undertaken for secular reasons but unlawful when undertaking for religious reasons.

Much as government may not restrict actions only because of religious belief, government may not target persons or individuals because of their religion.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 does not permit the federal government to second-guess the reasonableness of a religious belief...

Only the interests of the highest order can outweigh legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion. 

Employers...may not fail or refuse to hire, discharge, or discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of that individual's religion...  

Apply these principles and this guidance to the NFL players who kneel respectfully during the anthem as an expression of religious liberty, vs. an expression of free speech, and what do you have?

• Protected demonstrations of religious belief, just as protected as the sign-of-the-crossing and pointing to the heavens that occur throughout athletic competitions of all kinds as both a preliminary and celebratory action;
• people maintaining religious freedom while participating in the marketplace, just like those who bake - or don't bake - for customers, or who sign - or don't sign - marriage licenses as government employees; 
• people who are protected from bullying and targeting by the government, including by the president, the vice president and other members of the administration, who see linked arms as a positive display but kneeling as a negative one; 
• people who are protected from having their beliefs challenged as not being deeply enough held;
• people who are treated as fairly with respect to their religious beliefs as are companies that sell tchotchkes; 
• and employees whose ability to earn a living in their chosen profession is not hindered because of their religious beliefs.

That's what our American tradition of religious liberty means, right? 

Or, do these principles only apply when someone is trying to discriminate against gays, or when someone is trying to deny women access to contraception?

The Update Desk: National Day of Prayer

Well, in the end, it seems that the president did not have the courage of someone else's convictions and the executive order he signed today only goes so far in meeting the desires of 'his evangelicals' and others in his base.

Some have characterized the order as meaningless, ineffective, and "more symbolic than substantive" as it was significantly watered down from the leaked version I wrote about yesterday.

Trump, who earlier this year sneered that he would

get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.

Which, of course, they are allowed to do today, freely and without retribution, except for standing in their tax-free pulpit and telling their flock who to vote for, or against.

But when push came to shove, he did no such thing. Here is the relevant text of Thursday's Presidential Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty (with emphasis added):

Section 1.  Policy. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law's robust protections for religious freedom. The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views were integral to a vibrant public square (a place where representatives of faith are allowed to speak freely and without retribution) and in which religious people and institutions were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government (which they are today). For that reason, the United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans' first freedom. Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government. (Why yes, yes it does.) The executive branch will honor and enforce those protections. (As it did before yesterday's bill-signing, and the day before that, and the year before that, and the decade before that...)

Section 2. Respecting Religious and Political Speech. All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by low, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech. In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, (which would need to be changed by Congress, not a stroke of a pen) that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective (which they are allowed to do today), where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury. (which occurs extraordinarily infrequently and only when such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective encouraging a vote for, or against, a particular candidate.) As used in this section, "adverse action" means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies and tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit.

Section 3. Conscience Protections with Respect to Preventive-Care Mandate. The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate promulgated under section 300gg-13(c)(4) of title 42, United States Code. (Reiterating that people-companies can "exercise religion" (which is impossible) and discriminate against their people-employees who are under no obligation to hold the same faith to get their much-needed job, or who might not even know that their company has a religion to exercise. And while, as written, this particular gem is only applicable to the preventive care mandate and protections that the Affordable Care Act provided for access to a variety of contraceptive methods, including drugs that some have concluded cause abortions but which actually don't, how long before we "shall consider issuing amended regulations"  allowing the discrimination we feared would be here?)

Section 4. Religious Liberty Guidance. In order to guide all agencies in complying with relevant Federal law, the Attorney General shall, as appropriate, issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections under Federal law. (This may be the scariest part of all).

So, all in all, it could have been worse, I guess.

And it likely will be.

National Prayer Day 2017

Not being a religious person, I've never paid all that much attention to the National Day of Prayer. For example, until I looked it up, I never knew that it was older than me. According to the history link on its web page, the whole thing started back in 1952.

On April 17 a bill initiated by Mr. Conrad Hilton of Hilton Hotels and Senator Frank Carlson of Kansas was passed (Public Law 82-324) that the President of the United States was to set aside an appropriate day each year, other than Sunday, as a National Day of Prayer.

This year, along with many other people, I'll pay more attention. Because it's rumored that today is the day that president Trump will sign one of his Executive Orders - you know, the thing he wasn't going to do -- that mess with religion in a way that is unfair to others.

The order is supposed to reduce enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, the pesky little part of the law that prevents 501c(3) organizations from supporting political candidates and to enable more non-living, non-breathing human corporations to express their deeply held religious beliefs.

The three main points of the executive order, according to a senior White House official, will declare "that it is the policy of the administration to protect and vigorously promote religious liberty," direct the IRS "to exercise maximum enforcement of discretion to alleviate the burden of the Johnson Amendment," and provide "regulatory relief for religious objections to Obamacare's burdensome preventative services mandate."

The order, after what I'm sure will be a deeply moving, prayerful and somber, signature-flashing photo op, will be signed by a man who lied about belonging to a church, and whose actions and words do not generally reflect core values or religious beliefs of any kind.

That part doesn't matter so much, I guess, to the living breathing people and bricks and mortar people, as long as he does their bidding.

The order will take bold steps to try and legitimize discrimination as the law of the land. According to a leaked copy that has been out there since February,which may or may not have been changed in any significant way, the order

specifically protects the tax-exempt status of any organization that "believe, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as a union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life. 

And, if it goes as originally written,

It sets forth an exceptionally expansive definition of "religious exercise" that extends to "any act or refusal to act that is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the act is required or compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Words like these, and actions like the ones we are likely to see today, are part of the reason why I'm not religious, and in fact serve to strengthen my core beliefs in that regard.

The Update Desk: Newt's Sniff Test

Friday's post on the religious sniff test that Newt Gingrich believes is the way to solve the American problem of terrorist attacks in Europe needs a couple of updates.

First: Oops. Newt has apparently remembered that deporting American citizens is a no-no.

With an American citizen, deportation is impossible. It's not appropriate under the Constitution and there, historically we've always said, if you fought against the United States, that the correct answer were basically jail as opposed to deportation. I think we have to talk through what should be the right way of handling people who are here, but are not citizens. 

Second,  officials in France are holding several 'suspects' for questioning in the horrific Bastille Day attack. According to this article in the Washington Post, the ex-wife of the killer was held and then released, and there are a handful of others currently being questioned.  It seems the killer's cell phone has provided at least some insight, including a text right before the attack asking someone to 'bring more weapons' and it's believed the recipient of that text is one of the folks in custody.

The article also opens the door for Gingrich and others of similar beliefs to expand their attacks on Americans beyond merely religious grounds. Referencing public statements from ISIS that the killer was "a soldier of the Islamic State" but offering no proof of any kind,

The link underscores the difficulty of preventing the spread of extremist ideology in a world where even people like (the killer)  - whose family and neighbors portray him as a troubled loner - can be spurred to attack without training, resources or connections.

I can picture the SWAT teams now, cruising around town with Troubled Loner Cans (TLC),  like the ones they use to check license plates for parking tickets, slamming on the breaks whenever they spot someone with a pierced nose, or Goth tattoos.

That girl with the nerdy glasses with her face buried in a book. The millennial sitting on a park bench, face up turned to the sun.

Anyone walking around town without a fitness tracker. Men wearing black socks with sandals.

A person eating alone at a sidewalk cafe. A woman in the grocery store who has more cat food than people food in her grocery basket.

Someone who actually goes to the teller window instead of an ATM.

The guy in the kayak taking bird pictures.

And bonsai gardeners -- I mean, come on -- someone who spends their days torturing trees into crazy shapes, twisting them up with wires and then cutting them up with tiny scissors?

Clearly. Troubled Loners.

My Middle-aged White Lady Perspective: Every Tom, Ricardo and Hasid

A friend posted a letter on Facebook, ostensibly from an 'everyday American' to the Republican National Committee (RNC), explaining why people are rallying behind His Hairness as the leading candidate for President, and why the RNC is basically looking for love (or money) in all the wrong places.

The author of the letter is allegedly an 80-year-old lifelong Republican; I doubt that's the case, given that he never mentions serving his country, but proudly calls out that he has "a great deal of respect and influence with hundreds of senior ball players who network with thousands of others around the country" but then fails to explain why his influence with old ballplayers should be noteworthy.

While he agrees with the positions of the GOP, he's tired of them not listening to the people that elected them, and he shares an analogy to make the point of why people like him are supporting Trump. 

You've been on vacation for two weeks, you come home, and your basement is infested with raccoons. Hundreds of rabid, messy, mean raccoons have overtaken your basement. You want them gone immediately...You call the city and four different exterminators but nobody could handle the job. There is this one guy however, who guarantees you he will get rid of them, so you hire him. You don't care if they guy smells, you don't care if the guy swears, you don't care how many times he's been married, you don't care if he was friends with liberals, you don't care if he has plumber's crack...you simply want those raccoons gone! You want your problem fixed! He's the guy. He's the best. Period.

Trump, you see, is the raccoon-catcher: the smelly dude you call when no one else can or will do the job. The writer continues, describing the raccoons - or the outcome of having them in the basement:

This country is weak, bankrupt, our enemies are making fun of us, we're being invaded by illegal aliens and bringing tens of thousands of Muslim refugees to America while leaving Christians behind to be persecuted. We are becoming a nation of victims where every Tom, Ricardo and Hasid is part of a special group with special rights, to the point where we don't even recognize the country we were born and raised in. "AND WE JUST WANT IT FIXED" and Trump is the only guy who seems to understand what the people want.

So, can I say that I'd love to hear from any Christian who's been left behind here in America to be persecuted? Or even from someone who personally knows a person who's been persecuted as a Christian here in America? President Obama might be one, since he's been forced to defend his faith against accusations of being a Muslim since before he took the oath of office. Hell, even his American birth was questioned. 

For the purposes of this post though, POTUS would not count, unless he reached out to me directly to discuss his persecution.  Which would be cool, for sure, but is about as likely as it is that anyone else will contact me. 

Maybe the persecuted left-behind Christians are the ones who weren't voted into office? 

The folks most recently sent to Washington, and to statehouses around the country, are probably the single largest group of self-proclaimed religious politicians ever elected. They're happy to tell us over and over again how Christian they are, as they cut safety net programs, abolish women's health care, try to get us into another war or three, pretend that they really think man and dinosaur strolled the earth together just a few short years ago, denigrate Americans who don't look like them, cheat on their spouses, their constituents, or both, and create an ever-widening gap between the haves and the have nots. But they're darn good Christians, they say.  

Another question: the author says that our enemies are making fun of us. I don't know about you, but I wonder when we started worrying about that?  

And isn't it much worse that our friends are embarrassed by the activities of this election cycle, and of our elected officials over the past several years (anyone remember freedom fries?) and are afraid of the outcome of our election and what it means to our standing as leader of the free world, and to them as our allies?  If I had to pick one, I'd sure rather our friends were ready, able and willing to stand with us against our laughing enemies than I am about the laughing enemies themselves. 

And finally, since you're having such a hard time recognizing the country you were born in, would it help if we re-segregated schools, buses and water fountains? Maybe instead of having an all-volunteer military, you'd prefer we went back to the draft where we might offer deferrals for rich white folks, and send everyone else off, allow us to sacrifice 58,000 American lives fighting someone else's civil war? And go back to a set of special rights for white men, and a lesser set of rights for women and people of color? Or send all the black athletes back to their own leagues, and maybe not let them play senior ball with you?

I'm not suggesting that Trump will take us back there, to those times. I'm questioning if, as the supposed 80 year old writer of this letter says, we really want to go back and recognize the country in which he was born and raised.

From my middle-aged white lady's perspective, my answer is no, thank you, but thank you very much for asking.  

Oh - and tell the plumber to pull up his pants, will you?

Religion and Political Correctness

I thought I'd circle back on a post I did this past November, about a small business owner who chose to discourage customers who did not think the way he thought.

The business is a bakery; the discouragement comes from a sign, shown here, that the owner thought was politically incorrect, but which I think is simply rude.

It's one thing to bemoan political correctness; sometimes, I confess, it's too much for me (being a middle-aged white lady and all). It's something entirely different, though, to think that all of the things on the sign the owner posted on his door are mutually inclusive. As I suggested in the original post, one doesn't need to say "Merry Christmas" to be thankful for our troops and first responders, any more than one needs to believe in God to fly an American flag.

I got thinking about this political incorrectness, and what's really driving the sentiments. Is it all just a bunch of nonsense, fueled by Fox News? Is it angry Duck Dude and Duggar fans, lamenting the cancellation of shows that made gave them their heroes? Does it come from the 'denier' populace, those who think that Sandy Hook and other real, honest to goodness tragedies are 'false flags' manufactured by our government?

I think it's all of those, and then some. But it might also stem from something else -- the changing face of religion in our country.

Religious demographics in the US have been changing over time, with the greatest impact being a decrease in the number of Christians and an increase in the number of unaffiliated, according to a study released by the Pew Research Center last May.

The current study, done in 2014, and a prior one from 2007, each surveyed over 35,000 people, making the error margin less than 1%, much lower than we typically see with surveys and polls. Among the key findings:

• The percentage of people identifying as Christian dropped from 78.4%  in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014; Protestants and Catholics lost the most. 
• The percentage of 'unaffiliated' (which includes agnostics, atheists, and nothing-in-particulars ) grew from 16.1% to 22.8% during the same time period. The largest growth was in the last bucket, up 3.7%.
• People who married since 2010 chose a partner outside their faith 39% of the time; people who were married before 1960 married outside their faith only 5% of the time. 
• The percentage of non-whites grew in just about every Christian faith; overall the rate went from 29% to 34%.

These changes are significant, especially in a relatively short period of time. The new demographics may make people uncomfortable, but they aren't in and of themselves indicative of religious persecution, a war on Christmas or, even, a war on Christianity. 

In fact, in the face of the changing American religious landscape, the political power of the 'Religious Right' seems almost out of whack. And it seems to be these folks - the politicians and their stand-ins from the right-leaning media outlets - that are acting out, lashing out at anyone who doesn't share their beliefs, more than the Muslims and Buddhists and the nothing-in-particulars are lashing out at the Christians. 

Sometimes it's overt -- as with the battles over marriage equality, and over contraception. Sometimes it's a bit more subtle, as with the Ohio bakery and their 'love America like we do' message.

Whether it's a business exerting their personhood through a profession of its personal beliefs, or the politicians trying to legislate away anything that's not quite Christian or not quite American enough, I'm inspired to paraphrase Shakespeare's classic line from Hamlet: the right wing doth protest too much, methinks. 

Politically Incorrect? Or Just Rude?

Have you seen this one yet?

This is the sign that a the owner of a bakery in Springfield OH put up, alerting potential customers to his self-proclaimed politically incorrect beliefs.

Now, we all know that the store itself is not politically incorrect. It's just a bakery after all, with a nice tile floor and a pretty sign on the door. Stores don't have beliefs, after all.

And you know what? I don't think the owners are politically incorrect, either. They're just exercising their First Amendment rights, which would be politically correct, wouldn't it?

Now, some people are getting all up in arms about this, for example pointing out that there are 30-some-odd celebrations in December, and over 4000 religions in the world, and how being Christian is not the only one that matters or the best one, and so on -- keeping the focus on the religious aspect of this.

My first reaction?  Seems pretty rude to pretend that it's not possible to love our country and be thankful for those who serve without also being a Christian or having 'Merry Christmas' as the December greeting of choice. These are not mutually inclusive, or mutually exclusive; I presume the bakery owner knows that and opted for self-persecution and rudeness as way to express frustration with (or, in the case of some political candidates, support for) the current state of religion in general and (supposedly, per Fox News) on Christians in particular.

On the slim chance that he's truly unaware, I can assure him that people of many faiths (or without one) can and do love America, and serve in the military or as first responders; they die for our country on foreign soil and right here at home, right next to the Christians who do the same.

They buy doughnuts. They run for office, teach school, drive trucks, process insurance claims, bag groceries, wait tables, lead companies, build homes and skyscrapers, deliver babies, cure diseases, act in movies, sing their hearts out, own guns, vote, give to charity, write poetry, create great art, go into space, pay taxes, serve on school boards, take care of their homes, raise their families, and so on, right smack dab in the middle of all the Christians. They're Muslims and Buddhists and Satanists and Jews and atheists and Sikhs and tribalists and whatever else -  and they are Americans.

They pledge allegiance to the flag (maybe skipping the 'under God' part) and spend money just like Christians do - even when the money says In God We Trust, and when they don't believe a word of it.

Here, people can have religious beliefs, and can express them as they choose. They can also not have religious beliefs, and express or not express that, as they choose. Equally, people can choose to be rude, and can choose to think that there's only one way to love America.

Me? I'm a Happy Holidays kind of gal, for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which are that it's easier, and that I don't really think about it all that much. I'm not religious but I love America just as much as the guy who put up this sign wants us to believe he loves America.

I also respect those who currently serve, and those who have served in the military, and respect police and firemen and people in all different professions and religions, even though some folks, regardless of profession or faith, have shown they're not worthy of that respect. They -- as individuals -- no longer get mine, but I don't stop respecting the whole kit and caboodle of them.

The best part? As an American, I get to pick and choose where I'm going to buy baked goods -- and if I were in Springfield, I'd hope there was another bakery, because I would not patronize this one. Not because he appears to be a Christian and I'm not religious, but because I  think he doesn't want my business, and I don't want to offend him by patronizing his shop.

I do appreciate that he puts his attitude on the door, though -- that'll save me a trip.

The Sixth and First vs. the Second

In yesterday's post, I explained the real reason Kim Davis is in jail.

Among those who believe, erroneously, that  Davis is being persecuted for her religious views, for being a Christian, are some of the Republican presidential candidates. Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee have clearly come out on that side of the equation, as I noted yesterday. But where do the rest of the Rs stand on this?

Well, here's a sampling.

Front runner Donald Trump thinks that others in the Rowan County Clerk's office should be able to issue the licenses, or that frankly, people should leave town and get one somewhere else.

I would say the simple answer is to let her clerks do it. Now from what I understand, she's not letting the clerks do it either.  The other simple answer is rather than going through this -- because it's really a very, very sticky situation and terrible situation - 30 miles away they have other places they have many other places you get licenses. And you have them actually quite nearby, that's another alternative. 

He's half right - others in her office should be able to issue the marriage licenses, and in fact began doing so last week.  However, his suggestion that citizens cannot receive services in their own county because one elected official decides that her beliefs are more important than the law, is not acceptable.

Kentucky's own Senator Rand Paul says the answer is for states to stop issuing marriage licenses all together.

There never should have been any limitations on people of the same sex having contracts. But I do object to the state putting its imprimatur to the specialness of marriage, on something that's different than most people defined as marriage for most of history. So one way is just getting the state out completely, and I think that's where we're headed, actually.

Paul's answer is at least consistent with his beliefs in smaller government, and it removes the issue entirely by making marriage a contract between two parties with 'blessings' coming from a church if that's what you believe. But he too stays away from addressing the issue of an elected official not doing her job.

Rick Santorum, on his website, notes his respect for Davis, and vows to protect the First Amendment if elected.

I have great respect for Ms. Davis and her courage to stand up for her faith. In America we should not have to choose between keeping our job and practicing our faith. Today only reinforces my belief that the First Amendment Defense Act must be passed now at the Federal and state level. More and more people of faith will face the penalties Ms. Davis is now encountering if we do not make the necessary accommodations so people cannot just worship but live out their faith in their lives.

Santorum, like others, chooses to ignore the fact that Ms Davis is not just living out her faith, but insisting that everyone else live by her faith as well.

Similarly, Louisiana's Bobby Jindal  is on the wrong side of this. Speaking to the Huffington Post, he noted

I don't think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions. I think it's wrong to force Christian individuals or business owners. We are seeing government today discriminate against whether it's clerks, florists, musicians or others. I think that's wrong. I think you should be able to keep your job and follow your conscience. I absolutely do believe that people have a First Amendment right, a constitutional right. I don't think the court can take that away. 

And Wisconsin's golden boy Scott Walker?  He was "out there" in his response, (which is where he believes religious beliefs are practiced).

It's a balance that you've got to have in America between the laws that are out there, but ultimately ensuring the Constitution is upheld. I read that the Constitution is very clear, that people have the freedom of religion.  That means you have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs out there.

So, in general, these folks who would be president think that:

• it's OK for an elected official to put his or her personal religious beliefs above the law, and 
• it's generally OK for an elected official to impose those personal beliefs on everyone else,
• or that citizens should just find another jurisdiction to obtain the services they're entitled to,
• or that the government should just get out of the business of doing things that people may find objectionable.  

OK.  Let's pretend those are the right answers, the correct positions to have here. And let's say that I'm an elected official, and among my duties, I'm required to issue gun licenses and permits for folks who want to concealed-carry.

And let's say that it is my personal belief that guns kill people, and I steadfastly believe that 'Thou shalt not kill, and therefore I refuse to issue any gun licenses or concealed-carry permits.  And say that a judge orders me to issue the licenses and permits, and I not only refuse to issue them myself, but I also refuse to allow anyone else in my office to issue them. And say I try to get the Supreme Court to hear my case, and they refuse. And I still will not issue the permits, because of this 'heaven and hell' position my beliefs put me in (as Davis says), and so I go to jail.

• Would Mike Huckabee hold a rally for me, and petition the President to free me right now?
• Would Rick Santorum craft legislation to protect me? 
• Would Rand Paul suggest that the government get out of the gun permitting business, and have that just be a contract between two parties?
• Would Donald Trump simply send me to a different jurisdiction to avoid this "very, very sticky situation and terrible situation" in which I placed the citizens I was elected to serve?  

I think we all know the answer to that: Of. Course. Not.

Because a citizen exercising her personal right to practice her religion and live by her personal belief  that guns are killing machines and are against her religion, thereby barring other people from being able to exercise their right to own a gun? Well, that's a completely different constituency, and we know it's one that no Republican is going to defy.

These folks would be committing political suicide if they stood by me in a battle of the Sixth Commandment and the First Amendment vs. the Second Amendment.  I know it; you know it; and they know it. Add another twist - say I was a Muslim, or an atheist -- and we'd barely be able to see them in the rear view mirror.

These candidates should all take a page out of Carly Fiorina's book:

When you are a government employee as opposed to say, an employee of another kind of organization, then in essence, you are agreeing to act as an arm of the government. And while I disagree with this court's decision, their actions are clear. And so I think in this particular case, this woman now needs to make a decision of conscience -- is she prepared to continue to work for the government, be paid by the government, in which case she needs to execute the government's will, or does she feel so strongly about this that she wants to sever her employment with the government ...?

That is exactly the issue here. And that's exactly the right answer.

That we have so many people running for president who pretend not to understand  this, and who would not have the courage of this 'religious freedom' conviction if the belief-holder wasn't a Christian, and wasn't complaining about same sex marriage, is frightening.

Why is Kim Davis in Jail?

Kim Davis is in jail because not because she's being punished for her beliefs, as some people maintain, but for her failure to obey the law and her failure to do her duty as the elected county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky.

Some of the presidential candidates are chiming in.Prominently, for example, Mike Huckabee, president of the Josh Duggar Fan Club, plans on visiting Davis on Tuesday.  He's also established a Free Kim Davis Now petition,which is front and center on his presidential campaign page.  The petition, addressed to President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and US District Judge David Bunning, states:

Immediately release Kim Davis from federal Custody. Exercising Religious Liberty should never be a crime in America. This is a direct attack on our God-given Constitutional Rights. 

Government government shutdown artist/denier Ted Cruz also supports Davis in her dereliction of duty, and has also wrongly stated the issue on purpose, noting that

Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their faith - or be sent to jail.

Not so much, gentlemen.

Kim Davis is not only not being persecuted for being a Christian; she's not being persecuted at all. She's being treated like a public official who has officially shown contempt for the law, and for multiple courts. Her disdain has been duly recognized, which is what she wanted, and she's simply getting the attention she requested by defying the court's order.

Some folks are happy to point out that Davis has had four marriages, as if that should disqualify her from having a faith-based position on same-sex unions. While it might be hypocritical to profess concern about the sanctity of marriage if you've had four of them yourself, it's not really our business, and it's not the issue here. The more time spent on that argument, I think, the more time wasted.

Truth be told, I'm also not concerned with her religious beliefs. Not because I disagree with them (which I do), and certainly not because she's not entitled to them -- she is absolutely entitled to have her own personal religious beliefs, and to share them. However, she has no right to impose her beliefs on anyone else. That's why they're called personal religious beliefs.

Some folks have suggested that, if Davis were a Muslim instead of a Christian, no one would have an issue  with her behavior. That argument is ridiculous; this isn't about her choice of faith - it's about her failure to do the job she was elected to do.

Davis's decision to deny marriage licenses to all who seek them, whether gay or straight, is not a defense, either. Dereliction of duty equally applied is still dereliction of duty.

Her actions are also in direct conflict with her own statements thanking those who voted for her when she was elected last year, replacing her mother who served for decades in the position.

My words can never express the appreciation, but I promise to each and every one (of her constituents) that I will be the very best working clerk that I can be and will be a good steward of their tax dollars and fulfill the statutes of this office to the letter.  (Emphasis added.)

She also noted during the race that

If I'm elected it will be a seamless transition with no break in services to our citizens. Licenses, taxes, election-related activities and all of our other services cannot stop or slow down.  (Again, emphasis added.)

A "working clerk" would issue marriage licenses to all legal applicants, and a "good steward of their tax dollars" would not accept salary and benefits paid by tax dollars if he or she was not doing her job. After all, the county clerk cannot pick and choose which dollars she's going to take care of, she must take care of all of them, including the ones that pay her salary. Further, it defies logic that not issuing licenses would seem to constitute a "stop or slowdown" don't you think?

Davis should stay in jail for as many days as it takes for her to formally agree to perform all of the duties of her office. She could be released on bail, I suppose, but that would seem the easy way out (and one which would attract a lot less attention) so I doubt the option would be accepted if offered.

If she can't bring herself to faithfully execute the duties of her office -- all of them -- as required, then she must step down. I'd also like to see her repay the salary and benefits she received under false pretenses during this time. (Davis reportedly makes $80,000 per year.)

She's also potentially facing charges for misconduct,for violating the Kentucky code; charges have been referred to the State's Attorney General.

A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, knowingly (a) commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions or (b) refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office or (c) violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office. 

The code doesn't get into the reasons behind an official's misconduct, and neither should we.

Kim Davis is welcome to exercise her religious beliefs, even to proselytize on her own time; she's welcome to teach bible study to prisoners (if they're interested) on her free time, as it's been reported she does.

However, she's not welcome to deny services to the taxpayers she was elected to serve, whether they are gay or straight, old or young, black or white, male or female, Christian or atheist or anything in between.

An Easter Message

Easter sunrise, 2015/veritablepastiche

Today is a day of celebration for some, a deeply religious holiday for those who celebrate that The Son is risen. For others, it's a 'normal' day, filled with content that the sun has risen.

For me, being in the latter half of that equation, Easter Sunday has always been a day of family, food and laughter, with heavy emphasis on the laughter part, certainly while my Dad was alive, and we have done well to keep that going since he's been gone.

When we were kids, we colored eggs, and had our Easter egg hunts, searching high and low for the ones we had colored and the coveted plastic ones with coins or jelly beans inside them.  I can picture my brothers, one and two years older than me, and taller, wandering around the house on Easter morning, checking things out, making mental notes of where the good ones were. My oldest brother had a way of tilting his head and raising an eyebrow when he saw a treasure waiting in what I'm sure Mom and Dad thought was a particularly good hiding place.

I also remember us getting chided by my Dad, for doing reconnaissance before he and Mom got up, for trying to take more than our fair share, not playing well together, and so on.

Even though we stopped going to church when we were young, around nine or ten I think, there was always an expectation  that we would 'behave' appropriately.  Not just from a discipline perspective, such as riding your bike into the charcoal grill (me), or succumbing to peer pressure and shoplifting (me), or playing with matches (NOT me), or a classic, 'spelling' bad words by writing 7734 upside-down (yeah that was me again), but from the larger perspective too.

You did not need to go to church, you did not need to believe that Christ died on the cross, or in the Resurrection, or in the rest of it, to understand that treating people fairly and with respect was the right thing to do, that taking everything you saw or could get your hands on and leaving others with nothing was the wrong thing to do, that being mean and calling people names or picking on people who were 'different' was not acceptable, or that being charitable, even to your annoying little sister, was the better path to take.

Surely, we did not learn these lessons perfectly, sometimes to the chagrin of my Methodist mom and my non-religious Dad, but I suspect they hadn't learned the lessons perfectly either. My Dad never met a dumb blond joke he didn't like, for example, and never missed an episode of All in the Family, but made sure that 'Polack' jokes became 'Peter, Andy and Susan' jokes.  They never stopped trying - and never stopped encouraging us, through word and deed, to keep trying as well, not because there'll be a place for us in Heaven if we do, but because our place on Earth can be better for the effort.

And that's where we are today, some 45 or 50 years later. Our collective place on Earth can be better for the effort, for the simple wisdom that we were taught when we were kids:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 

Let's not do things to others in the name of our religious beliefs or our politics that we would not willingly accept if done to us by others in the name of their religious beliefs or their politics.

Let's not be the reason why, in what is arguably the greatest democracy in the history of the world, we need to have laws on the books reminding us that we cannot discriminate against others based on their

race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identify, or United States military service

This doesn't mean that we can't find things distasteful, or that we have to like everyone, or that our circle of friends needs to look like a Target ad or an Applebee's commercial or the stock photos we see in our company's publications, or that we have to agree with everyone on everything, or even that we have to understand everyone else.

After all, we are not perfect, and I don't think (for believers or non-believers) that perfection is the expectation. But can we strive to do better, be more accepting, more tolerant, more forgiving, more understanding?

Make room. Do unto others.

Happy Easter.

First They Came for the Muslims

Most of us have heard  some version of the "First They Came" quote, one of which is below.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out,
because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out

because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out,

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

There's some disagreement over who wrote it, or what the original version was; it's generally attributed to Martin Neimoller, a German pastor and lecturer, although it supposedly could have been written by some counter-culture types who figured no one would pay attention if they put it out on their own, so they tagged Neimoller with credit.  

Regardless of the true origin, the meaning is clear, as is the evergreen and challenging nature of it.  Watch:

First they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out

because I was not a Muslim.

Seem relevant? It should; all you have to do is watch the news coming out of France on anti-Muslim attacks since the terrorist acts on Charlie Hebdo and the kosher grocery store; or Germany, where there are regular anti-Muslim rallies; or read any number of articles right here at home, or listen to our politicians:

• John Bennett of Oklahoma, who professes to have read the Koran and has determined that Islam is a "cancer that needs to be cut out of our nation" among other things.
• Bobby Jindal, Catholic convert from Hinduism, Louisiana Governor and possible presidential candidate, on the need for Muslims to assimilate, and stop with their Sharia law stuff and those unnamed 'no-go' zones where women are afraid to go without veils.
• Jack Whitley, a Republican party hack from Minnesota, who pronounced last November that we should "frag" Muslims when they make their pilgrimage to Mecca - I mean we know they're going to be there, right? 

Or, read your state's political party platform, such as the one from Texas which specifically calls out Sharia Law as something from which protection is needed; even in the face of cases where American people and companies have benefited from our courts taking such laws into consideration.

Some of us at least appear to have difficulty differentiating between a faith and terrorists. For some people, it's a definitive choice; hatred for others who are not like us is not unheard of. For others, though, it's possibly a lack of understanding or it's perhaps because they've never thought about it.  That's the way it is for us in majority America when it comes to race and racism (it doesn't exist, right?) and religion (mine is good and yours is OK as long as it's a lot like mine or at least resembles mine a little) and free speech (as long as it's not critical of anything I believe in or even remotely critical of America. If you need examples, look no further than 'American Sniper' discussions).

What would happen, I wonder,  if this were the next verse we wrote today:

Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak up, 

for I was not a Catholic.

Catholics? Why would anyone come for the Catholics? 

Catholic priests abused children, tens of thousands of children around the world; the true number terrorized by these men of the cloth may never be known.  The Catholic church at different times feigned ignorance of the abuse, then denied it ever happened. They failed to protect the children from the abusers, and instead focused on protecting the Church and her leaders; they moved abusers from parish to parish, expanding the problem instead of limiting it. Had church officials been school teachers or doctors or bus drivers or coaches or politicians or people from any other walk of life, they would surely have ended up in jail. Permanently in jail.

These men were terrorists, plain and simple. They were priests, yes, and they were Catholics, yes, but they individually were terrorists.  They did not represent the entire Catholic clergy, and their behavior is not presumed to be representative of all Catholics.  In fact, the opposite is true.  

The presumption (from people who were not victimized by these men) has always been that these individual priests were monsters, and that maybe some of the leaders of the church were complicit in the cover up, and that maybe some did not do enough to take care of the victims. There are still Catholics who believe this never even happened.

But has there been a call to round up all Catholics, to ban all Catholics, to evict all Catholics, to bomb and shoot at Catholic churches, to burn down Catholic houses of worship? Any calls to 'frag them' on Christmas Eve and Easter Sunday? Of course not.

It would be wrong to brand an entire faith and all her followers as terrorists, simply based on the bad acts of a small minority of them, wouldn't it? 

Well, sure, that would be wrong.

Unless of course they're not done taking care of the Muslims.

Extreme Conservatism, Texas Style

Remember a while back when our Sonofa Governor Andrew Cuomo noted that those pesky extreme conservatives don't belong in New York?  In case you had forgotten, here's the crux of what he said that people, naturally, took out of context:

Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives, who are right to life, pro-assault weapon, anti-gay? Because if that is who they are, and if they are the extreme conservatives they have no place in the state of New York, because that is not who New Yorkers are. 

That caused a lot of consternation on the right, not surprisingly. It was pretended that he meant all conservatives need to pack up and move, or worse, stick around and then be sent off to 'camps' evoking Nazi Germany, or, say, America with our camps for the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

In the months that have passed since Cuomo 'went there' on New York not being extremist, other states have boldly continued on their mission to take the National Championship of Extremism. We've seen the anti-equality laws, we've seen climate change denial, we've seen religious freedoms extend to bricks and mortar people equally as they extend to living breathing people, and we've seen moves to allow businesses to refuse service based on, well, pretty much whatever they want.   And now, we have the Texas Republican 2014 Party Platform.

Here are just a few tidbits from that document:

• Preservation of Republican Form of Government: We support our republican form of government in Texas, as set forth in the Texas Bill of Rights, and oppose initiative and referendum. We also urge the Texas Legislature and the United States Congress to enact legislation prohibiting any judicial jurisdiction from allowing any substitute or parallel system of law, specifically foreign law (including Sharia Law), which is not in accordance with the US or Texas Constitutions. And because Sharia Law within our borders is such a threat, especially now that our first 'Muslim President' is a lame duck... 

• Climate Change: While we all strive to be good stewards of the earth, “climate change” is a political agenda which attempts to control every aspect of our lives. We urge government at all levels to ignore any plea for money to fund global climate change or “climate justice” initiatives. So when the 367 miles of Gulf Coast shoreline begin their inevitable degradation in the face of rising waters, and coastal cities, oil rigs, fisheries, billions in tourism and the like are threatened, we can all sit back watching Texas drown in their convictions, and ignore their pleas for even a penny of assistance. (And there won't be a citizens revolution in the form of 'initiative or referendum' to change this, because that would be wrong.) 

• Homosexuality- Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that have been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nation's founders and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, in public policy, nor should family be redefined to include homosexual couples... Additionally we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.  So that part about all men being created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we'll ignore that part entirely.  And in case you are lost and wandering down the path of 'choice', there's hope for you: 

• Reparative Therapy- We recognize the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy. Not sure if seeking healing and wholeness 'from' their lifestyle is really what they meant with this. Isn't that what gays are seeking 'with' their lifestyle, just like straight folks?

• Food Choice- We support the right of individuals to make their own dietary decisions. We oppose any laws regarding the production, distribution, or consumption of food. Government should not restrict non-genetically engineered seeds. Any laws regarding food? Really? Roadkill can be distributed as food? Infected cattle can be turned into steaks, distributed and eaten? Note to self: no eating in Texas. And doesn't the part about seeds seem backwards? I don't think folks are really concerned about 'natural' seeds, the concern is all about the ones that are GMO or 'genetically engineered'.  Or do extreme conservatives think differently on this one?

• Immunizations- All adult citizens should have the legal right to conscientiously choose which vaccines are administered to themselves, or their minor children, without penalty for refusing a vaccine. We oppose any effort by any authority to mandate such vaccines or any medical database that would contain personal records of citizens without their consent. So your personal choice to not vaccinate your kids against preventable infectious and contagious diseases can endanger my health and that's good with you, Republicans?  Hope you still fee that way if one of your family members is impacted by someone else's decision not to vaccinate.

• Controversial Theories- We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of  scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challenge-able scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind. Yea, though I walk through the valleys of Texas with dinosaurs by my side, near underwater cities, I fear no evil for I have been educated in Texas!

• Traditional Principles in Education - we support school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded and which form the basis of America's legal, political and economic systems. We support curricula that are heavily weighted on original founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and Founder's writings. Except we'll disregard all of the pieces that have been changed over the years like ending slavery, voting rights, civil rights, etc. Unless they're about 'science' in which case we can re-think them "as new data is produced."  And then there's that whole Judea-Christian economic system thing. Definitely going to need some help on that one. 

• Right to Keep and Bear Arms- America’s founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment with clear intent – no level of government shall regulate either the ownership or possession of firearms. Therefore we strongly oppose all laws that infringe on the right to bear arms. We oppose the monitoring of gun ownership, the taxation and regulation of guns, ammunition, and gun magazines. Welcome felons, and mentally disturbed, and people with restraining orders... welcome to freedom-loving,gun-loving Texas. 

They also believe in adoption for embryos, separate (but presumably equal) polling places for Democrats and Republicans, elimination of just about all taxes, Texas sovereignty (including ignoring federal laws), repealing environmental regulations, and banning any kind of Census activity other than straight counting.

They are for a citizenship mark on a driver's license, but against a national ID card. They are for free speech for clergy (meaning political speech without sacrificing tax breaks), letting juries make decisions based on their personal beliefs (not on evidence presented in court), and voting rights for everyone except felons (who will then presumably vote with their un-infringed weapons).

They support fetal rights, protection of life from fertilization to natural death, Advance Directives and patient's rights, except when the patient doesn't want hydration or nutrition, which cannot be withheld.  (We've seen the impact of  Texas 'extreme right to life' policies recently.)

They support continued funding for the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars missile defense, you recall) not only for us, but specifically for Poland and the Czech Republic.

It goes on and on, some 40 pages worth. Some of it is actually reasonable, but for me, it's hard to stick with it in the face of the rest.

This is what Cuomo was talking about, when he talked about 'extreme conservatives.' Like Cuomo, I believe that this is outside the mainstream thinking of most New Yorkers, the majority of whom favor equal rights, reasonable gun control, and understand that man and dinosaur did not stroll to the prehistoric fast food joint together to order a burger or a nice salad.

That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement, for a change in policies, or even a change in leadership for New York.  It just means we don't want to be Texas.

Religion and Government, Iowa Style

As I noted the other day, Alabama and Iowa are having fun with religion and government in their own way, completely apart from the Supreme Court decision in the Town of Greece v. Galloway case, in which the right to 'legislative prayer' was upheld by a 5-4 vote.

Alabama's apparently been taken over by Someone Else, aka the Christian God.  Iowa has its own traditions to uphold, and they have a bunch of Senate candidates doing their darnedest to out-Christian each other in efforts to appease those traditional voters.

For example, there's this guy, Representative Tom Shaw. He was unhappy with the unanimous 2009 decision of Iowa judges that gay marriage was constitutional.  Five of the judges were no longer around by the time Shaw put forth his proposal to cut the pay of the four who were left in 2013 from around $160K to $25K.  That'll teach em to mess with marriage, darn it!

Shaw announced in January that he would not be running for re-election this fall. In a letter to supporters, he noted

Honor to God, fidelity to the Constitution, as seen thru the prism of the stated purposes contained in the Declaration of Independence, is my foundation.  These guiding principles helped me in determining my votes...votes place on behalf of 30,000 Iowans. No man is perfect, but I tried to serve ethically, honorably and truthfully during my tenure. 

My "no compromise" approach did not always set well with others.  However, in his book Confrontational Politics, author H. L. Richardson, retired California State Senator, states "When we give in to liberals, even an inch, we're not compromising, we're abdicating our rights and our honor. When our legislators likewise, they are abdicating our right and their honor.  

His 'no compromise' approach  -- voting againstt a bill banning late term abortions, because he would only support a ban on all abortions -- that kind of thing,did not set well with his own party, so I'm thinking they might be OK with his decision not to run again.

But lame duck Mr. Shaw is not the only Republican in Iowa with a religious streak a mile wide. Three candidates who are running to fill the US Senate seat of another lame duck, Tom Harkin, who is not running for re-election when his term expires -- and they're trying to out-religious each other in the worst way.

When the topic of federal judges came up, three of the candidates indicated they'd look for judges who adhered to 'natural law' or who professed faith in God. (The video is here if you care to watch.)

• First, there's Sam Clovis, a college professor, who  has "a very firm litmus test" on judges: "Can that judge explain to me natural law and natural rights?" 
• Next, there's Iowa State Senator Joni Ernst who agreed with Clovis and added that judges should understand that the Constitution and all our laws came from God and that senators (considering candidates for the federal bench) should "make sure that any decisions that they have made in the past are decisions that fit within that criteria."
• And then there's Matt Whitaker, a former federal prosecutor who (like Tom Shaw) felt his fellow Republicans didn't go far enough - he would demand that nominees for the federal bench are "people of faith" and "have a biblical view of justice." He noted that "As long as they have that worldview, they'll be a good judge. And if they have a secular worldview, where this is all we have here on earth, than I'm going to be very concerned about how they judge." 

This type of thinking, and the type of thinking that's prevalent in Alabama (where Someone Else controls the state), and the type of thinking that allows 'strongly held religious belief' laws which institutionalize discrimination, is not consistent with what I thought we stood for.

Religion and Government, Alabama Style

With much less fanfare than that generated by the Town of Greece v. Galloway case, Iowa and Alabama are having their own fun with religion and government. And by fun, I mean fun house crazy mirror fun.

First, Alabama.  Remember 'The Ten Commandments Judge', Roy Moore?  He was the judge who was ordered to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments and took his case all the way to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS refused to hear his case, and ultimately, he was fired.  The group that removed him from office, other judges, lawyers, and non-lawyers, decided unanimously that

Moore put himself above the law by 'willfully and publicly' flouting the order to remove the 2.6 ton monument from the state judicial building's rotunda... 

Moore, who unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2006 and again in 2010, and is well-known on the religious circuit, won re-election to the Alabama court in November 2012, and at his swearing-in ceremony a couple of month later, noted that

We've got to remember that most of what we do in court comes from some Scripture or is backed by Scripture.

And he went on to note, according to the article, that the court system was created by God and that the basis for law is outlined in the Book of Deuteronomy. (Seems I have some reading to do.)

Even more interesting than Moore's own comments, though, were those of Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, who said this (referring to Moore and an associate justice also sworn in at that time)

We have common beliefs and we believe in the same God. And we worship that same God. And I am honored to serve with two men like this and men and women on this court. It is a true honor. And I truly believe that the people of Alabama are better off when we believe we have men and women who believe there is Someone else who controls their lives and controls this state. 

"Someone else who controls this state."  Uh-huh.

Fast forward a year, to January 2014. Justice Moore was speaking at a luncheon in Mississippi, where he reminded us that

Buddha didn't create us, Mohammed didn't create us, it was the God of the Holy Scriptures...They didn't bring the Koran over on the pilgrim ship, the Mayflower..Let's get real, let's go back and learn our history. Let's stop playing games.... 

And that the 'pursuit of happiness' meant following God's law, because regardless of pop songs suggesting otherwise,

...you can't be happy unless you follow God's law, and if you follow God's law you can't be unhappy.... It's all about God...

Here's more Moore if you're interested in watching his speech.

It should be noted that Moore has clarified his position on the First Amendment and Christianity. Speaking earlier this week, after his January lunch and learn comments came to light, he stated that

It applies to the rights God gave us to be free in our modes of thinking, and as far as religious liberty to all people regardless of what they believe.

To recap:  the once fired  but now resurrected judge believes (but only when questioned about it) that the First Amendment does in fact apply to folks other than Christians, all his other statements to the contrary, and the governor believes Someone Else controls the state of Alabama, that Someone Else being the same God worshiped by Judge Moore who was fired for parking the Ten Commandments in the middle of a government building, only to be re-elected and set free to tell us about God and God's law.  

To answer the age-old question, I guess that means that yes, the circle will be unbroken.   But does this feel like the right relationship between religion and government?   

When in Greece...

...do as the 'Greecians' do. And say a little prayer before your meetings.

According to the Supreme Court's decision in the Town of Greece v Galloway case, 'legislative prayer' is the kind that happens before a government meeting, such as the ones they hold in the Town of Greece, down the road from here outside Rochester NY.  As such, it's got a long history in our country, and as long as it's no coercive or proselytistic not denigrating or demeaning to any other religion, and does not place one religion above others, it's OK. 

I confess (in a completely non-religious way) that it does make me a little uncomfortable -- not a lot, but a little -- that something as personal as asking for guidance or intervention has, over time, become such a public thing.

Does it bother me enough to file a lawsuit? Nope -- frankly, I don't have that much courage. Usually, I just cave and either put my head down and keep my thoughts to myself, or I furtively look around to see if anyone else is doing the same thing I'm doing, and hoping I don't get caught in the act. 

A town board meeting is not a religious service --it's a town board meeting. It's a place where the public goes to do business with their elected and appointed officials (and vice versa), and there shouldn't be a religious connotation or expectation associated with it. A person shouldn't have to worry whether the board might treat them differently for failing to actively participate in the meeting's opening prayer, and a person shouldn't have to profess a religious belief in order to talk town business. (It's also worth noting that the meetings also include the Pledge of Allegiance, so they kind of have the 'under God' thing covered).

Should a legislative meeting need an opening, there's always "Let's get ready to rumble!" or "Let the games begin!" or "Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines!" or "Play ball!"  or something along those lines.