Not long ago, Wayfarer expressed concern that gay marriage proponents might end up wanting to force their beliefs on churches that didn't agree with them:

"In Canada it is already a crime for some one preach against homosexuality.  How soon, before it happens in the US.  Perhaps in the future, it will be a crime for clergy to refuse to bless same sex marriages."

Some time ago I had occasion to opine on a possible real-life case.  Here is what I wrote on my sister site regarding a situation resembling what he described:

________________________

Wall of Separation Must Be Two-Way -- Both Ways

No, the title isn't redundant.

According to a Courier Post editorial, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a local Methodist church must allow a same-sex civil union to take place on its property.

In principle, this should never be.  In the same way that governments must fulfill their still largely unfulfilled obligation to recognize same-sex marriage ceremonies performed by churches who deem them sacred and legitimate, a church that opposes same-sex marriage must have it's beliefs and rights respected as well.

No church -- whether it supports or opposes same-sex marriage -- should have its teachings and beliefs overridden by the government with its own walls or on its own property.

(Nevermind that this particular civil wrong is currently being perpetrated against churches that do recognize same-sex marriage.  Governments across the nation are unlawfully dictating to churches the meaning of the particular sacred rite known as marriage, by dictating to them that legitimate marriage must be one-man, one-woman.)

The sticking point, according to New Jersey's Star-Ledger, is the fact that the church received public money to refurbish buildings and maintain the beach.  When you accept government money, you accept the government's attached strings.

Churches that eagerly want to tap into government subsidies should think twice about their religious liberties before welcoming into their sanctuaries the regulations that come with government dollars.

And churches that object to the government ordering them to allow same-sex civil unions on their property ought to do the right thing, and oppose it when other governments try to tell other churches that same-sex unions are not valid, even when such other churches believe that they are.

_________

.

There.  Now I've had my views tested from the other side.

No freedom is true freedom unless it respects the freedoms of those whom we disagree with.

 

Many Religious Right spokespersons attempt to argue that the First Amendment's prohibition of the establishment of religion was merely intended to prevent the establishment of one particular denomination of Christianity, and to keep the government out of the affairs of the church -- all while arguing that the Founding Fathers intended Christianity itself to be the official, legally recognized (and imposed) religion of the United States.

Dr. Thomas Lee Abshier, a former candidate for United States Senate, writes the following, which despite some internal contradictions and conflicting messages, both illustrates a common Religious Right view and acknowledges some problems with it.  He begins:

"The Founders intended that America be a Christian Nation, and they intended that we legislate social behavior using the standards of Biblical principle.  But, they erected a Constitutional wall against Congress establishing a single denomination as a State religion."

But with due caution, observes:

"But, the multiple writers, contexts, and eras make it easy to derive many possible interpretations from the Bible.  As a result, many denominations have arisen to support a particular perspective about Biblical truth.  The ambiguity about the perfect Christian doctrine is one important reason why a particular interpretation of scripture, or system or interpretation (denominational creed) should not be given a place of legally established superiority."

Great point.  He observes further,

"The Founders saw the tendency of the human heart to engage in control and domination in the name of God.  ...  This prohibition was not meant to prevent any and all religious expression in government, but rather to prevent a single creed or denomination of Christianity from using the power of the State to enforce compliance to a single denominational doctrine."

At the rate the good doctor is going, I won't need to write this article.  He's making my opening argument as well as I can.  However, there are more points to address, so let us go to work dissecting this unusually thoughtful piece.

First things first.  Let's admit it.  Nearly 100 percent of the Religious Right's drive for power is to legislate private behavior.  The Gospel is strangely absent from their platform.  So, let's see what it takes to "legislate social behavior using the standards of Biblical principle."

To legislate social behavior using Biblical principles, the government must render a theological decision on Biblical teachings.  But as the doctor observes, different denominations arrive at different interpretations of Scripture.  He correctly says that one particular interpretation shouldn't enjoy legally established superiority. 

Therefore, if the government enacted legislation based on Biblical principles, the government must first have arrived at a particular interpretation -- an interpretation with which some Christian denominations are likely to differ.

For example, some Christians rightly observe that there is nothing wrong with nudity, and that it is in no way contrary to Biblical teaching.  Yet the efforts to censor depictions of, or the practice of, nudity almost always come from people who claim to want laws to reflect "Biblical principles."  By trying to censor or otherwise criminalize nudity, they are trying to enact a particular interpretation of Scripture into law -- an interpretation with which many Christians disagree.

Such legislative acts run afoul of what even the Religious Right claims about church/state separation.

Next, in deciding whether or not to enact a Bible-based law, government must render a theological decision regarding whether or not it should be punishable.  Prostitution was frowned upon under Mosaic Law, but was not criminal in itself.  Yet you can bet that almost everyone who wants Bible-based laws would criminalize prostitution, or insist that it remain criminalized.

But that's yet another theological decision that the government has rendered, with which some Christian denominations might disagree.  By legislating morality, government is usurping the freedom of churches to interpret Scripture on their own and to live according to the findings of their faith.

The priority and emphasis that such a Biblical government would give to each Biblical principle is yet another theological rendering that some Christian denominations would dispute.  Scripture teaches that the love of money is a great source of evil -- yet not only are Religious Right groups and representatives completely neglecting to advocate greed laws, but many of them actively resist the making of laws that would prohibit amassing ridiculous amounts of wealth or require than excess wealth be given to the poor.  That's one Bible-based law that would spark outrage among over 90 percent of the Religious Right!

Moreover, by advocating the legislation of Biblical morality, they are immediately disregarding the beliefs of Christians who believe that legalism went out with the New Covenant.

One can make a strong case that Jesus' two commandments, to love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself, supercede the legalistic details of Old Testament law.  Other New Testament passages certainly reflect this: "The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."  Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:8-10) and "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right." (James 2:8).

To many Christians, legalism and the bindings of Mosaic Law are things of the past, as Ephesians 2:13-17 and Colossians 2:13-15 suggest.

So, when Religious Right groups advocating legislating specific religious moralities, they are also stepping on the toes of Christians who adhere to the above two paragraphs, disregarding the rights of these Christians while giving the Religious Right's doctrinal beliefs a preferred, supreme position in law.

Finally, there is one more theological matter that the Religious Right isn't even contemplating prior to acting -- whether it's Scriptural to legislate religious laws outside the walls of the church in the first place.  By doing so, they are deciding that enacting such laws is Biblically sound -- when many Christian denominations also disagree with that.

1 Corinthians 5:11-13 says that God will judge those outside the church.  Any reproof and correction based on Christian doctrine is to take place within the body of Christ, not the world at large.  Even in the frequently quoted passage Romans 1:18-32, there is no command or suggestion that believers try to impose their belief on them.  Indeed, God did exactly the opposite -- He let them go on their way, giving them over to the kind of life they wanted.

And, needless to say, the strife and tensions that always arise between religious (and secular) sects when one religious belief system is imposed by law, violates another New Testament teaching: to live in peace with the people around you.  The early church went out into a pagan world -- yet believers were instructed to live peaceably with them -- not make political trouble for them (Romans 12:18, 1 Peter 3:8-9, 1 Timothy 2:1-4, Titus 3:1-7, Hebrews 12:14).

In other words, the inevitable result of trying to establish religious law via the State is to egregiously violate of New Testament teachings about living peacefully with those around you.

So, in light of all this, what do we make of the Religious RIght's claim that the First Amendment's purpose was merely to prevent the establishment of one particular denomination or its precepts into law, and to keep the government out of the affairs of the church?

We end up discovering that the Religious Right's political agenda is unconstitutional even by their own claims.  When government tries to enact a Biblical law, it renders a theological conclusion that -- by necessity -- codifies one doctrinal view into law over and above the tenets of Christians that might disagree.  And by the act itself of so legisating, it is implicitly favoring the theological view that religious laws are appropriate for legislation -- to the disrespect of Christians who do not.

Therefore, even by the Religious Right's definition, the only possible Constitutional route is the secular view of government and lawmaking.

.

Since we're bringing up the classical "hot topics," here's a couple goodies that I wrote on my sister site.

Critics of gay marriage often ask, "where do you see the right to gay marriage in the Constitution?"

The answer is quite simple, actually,  It's also quite infallible. 

1. Marriage, many opponents of gay marriage correctly say, is a sacred institution.  In other words, marriage is, to many Americans, an institution of religious significance.
2. It is illegal, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, for the government to dictate the content and/or meaning of sacred rites of churches and religious groups.  In other words, it is unlawful for the government to define, by law, religious concepts such as sacredness.
3. Some churches and religious groups recognize sacredness in same-sex marriages.
4. Therefore, the government may not prohibit gay marriages, lest it engage in dictating religious meanings, terms, and/or content to churches and religious groups.
5. The Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees each American equal protection under the law.
6. Therefore, government may not lawfully choose to legally recognize the sacred institutions of some religions while refusing to recognize rites honored by other religious groups.
7. Therefore, governments must honor same-sex marriages as they do opposite-sex marriages.

 

That's it.  I could stop writing right here.  The only way out of this essentially infallible argument is to prove a compelling need to prohibit gay marriages.  That, I submit, cannot be done.

However, it would be a disservice to quit now, when there are so many pertinent supportive facts to serve up along the way.

Opponents often depict familiar one-man-one-woman marriage as the only true form of marriage since the beginning of time.  They depict gay marriage as a foreign addition to a heretofore undisturbed, untainted eternal institution of one-man-one-woman monogamy.

To do so is terribly ignorant of history and cultural anthropology.

The reality is that marriage has always taken different forms throughout human history.  Alongside polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, group marriage, and variants of these, same-sex marriage looks like just another member of the pack.  Something like it is even hinted at in the Bible.

Besides finding notoriety in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and related sects, polygamy is countenanced in the Old Testament of the Bible itself.  Group marriage has been practiced in the United States by the Oneida Community, a 19th-century Christian sect founded by John Humphrey Noyes.

Opponents also like to accuse same-sex marriage advocates of "redefining marriage."  Besides the multiple definitions listed above, that have always been part of human history, it's worth pointing out that conservative Christian groups have themselves been writing an alternative form of legal marriage into law: so-called Covenant Marriages.  Covenant marriage, among other attributes, imposes more limitations on divorce.

Okay, so I belabored the point a little, but these were such useful facts.  What we consider traditional marriage has never held a complete lock on the definition of marriage.  And it looks like conservative Christians are themselves out and about enacting alternative forms of marriage into law.

For the purposes of legal gay marriage, the Constitutionally based argument at the top of this article is all you need to know.

.

 

The brouhaha in the wake of Chad Vegas' proposal to post "In God We Trust" posters in every classroom shook loose a few thoughts and observations of my own.

But first, let me share my own position on this and similar issues.  Later on, after addressing the observations that I have made, I will attempt to justify why my approach to this and similar issues is the best.

In my eyes, working to remove Nativity scenes on city hall lawns, or little crosses from city flags or war memorials, or removing references to God from our money, are wastes of time.  Attempting to do so does next to nothing to broaden individual liberty, and breeds the maximum possible animosity to the concept of church/state separation.

Simply put, these behaviors put the worst possible face on the vital safeguard we know as Separation of Church and State.  Most live-a-day American citizens -- including secular and non-Christian folk -- do not feel threatened by any of these traditional religious allusions.

If "In God We Trust" had been hanging in high school classrooms for all these years, I would not be agitating for their removal.

There are enough truck-sized holes in the church/state wall that plugging the finger-sized leaks in it is silly.

But I oppose the addition of these posters right now, much more due to the motives behind them rather than the words themselves.

Chad Vegas, and those who share his political vision, appear to have a goal of advancing a religious nationalism -- they hope to make the word "American" a synonym for "Christian."  If you're not a Christian -- as they define Christian -- you're not quite a full-fledged American.

Reading some of the comments in favor seem to support this.  When commenters shout to opponents, "if you don't like living in a country based on God, go back where you came from," that is suggesting, quite plainly, that anyone who opposes the unification of religion and government isn't qualified to be an American.

I was born here, and am old enough to remember prayer in public schools.  "Going back where I came from" would take me just across the Mississippi River.

Those of us vested in preserving the separation of church and state, see this coming whenever these issues arise.  Commenters prove our assumptions to be correct, and we go to great lengths to try to convince onlookers of "what these people are really up to."

All the while, onlookers are wishing that we would simply stick to the merits, pro and con, of erecting "In God We Trust" posters.

Trouble is, in today's environment, it's difficult to separate the message from the intent.  Erect them, and a certain segment of us will see in them a formal endorsement of religious nationalism.

And religious nationalism has never, ever, resulted in any benefit for humanity.

Therefore, the real task ought to be: take on the intent and drive that back to the fringe.  Deal with the real threats to religious and personal freedom, and to the church/state wall.  Confront the truck-sized holes in the church/state wall with a flatbed full of brick and mortar.  Strengthen the view that being an American connotes a love of freedom, and a respect for individuality, not a specific religious preference or cultural paradigm.

See, if and when we succeed in beating religious nationalism and thoughts of theocracy back to the distant fringes of political thought, then we will no longer see dangerous and divisive underlying messages in otherwise benign religious references in our classrooms, public grounds, and money.

Defeat the nascent fascism behind the current drive to politicize religion, and the perceived threats of things like "In God We Trust" or a little cross on a public war memorial, will no longer be perceived.  The need to question benign religious references in the public square will disappear, at least in my eyes.

Then we can get back to being just Americans again.

 

 

Since the topic of haunted houses came up, I thought I'd share a true personal experience that -- while not ghost-related -- is considered paranormal by many.  This amazing story comes in two amazing parts.

In Part 1, I had a long and vivid dream in which I was riding as a passenger in a car on a freeway.  As we emerged from under an overpass, I looked skyward up and toward the left, and witnessed a small private airplane crash mid-air into a red and silver commercial airliner.  The airliner crashed behind a horizon of trees in a residential district.

Upon arriving home from work in Los Angeles that next day, I turned on the news to see lengthy coverage of an air disaster.  An Aeromexico airliner had crashed in a residential area.  An animated video illustrated a private plane colliding mid-air with the airliner, in the exact same manner and direction that I envisioned in the dream.

I had dreamed, the night before, what would become known as the Cerritos Air Crash.

That story is chilling enough.  But wait -- Part 2 makes this look pale and ordinary by comparison.

A few years later, a coworker with whom I'd regularly "do lunch" as they say in L.A., needed money, so we went to his bank in Whittier.  On the return trip, my scalp prickled as we emerged from under an overpass.  I started looking around with some wonderment.  I had never been on the 605 freeway in my entire life, but somehow the scenery looked incredibly familiar.

I didn't say anything at the moment.  But after we returned to the office, I asked my coworker reservedly, "Brian, remember when we were heading back on the 605?  Was that anywhere near where the plane went down in Cerritos?"

He drew me a pencil map of the area, indicating where we were and where the plane went down.  The plane went down in the direction that I had witnessed from the passenger seat of the car that I was riding in in my dream.

Our ride back to the office passed over the exact spot where my experience in the dream took place.  I had been to, and recognized, a place that I had visited before only in a dream.

It's chilling enough to recognize a place that you've never seen, other than in a dream. But what this does is substantiate the authenticity of the original precognition.

Not only did my dream foretell a real tragedy that next day, but this proves that my dream vision had taken place at a location that actually exists -- a particular overpass on a particular Los Angeles freeway, in the exact location it would have to be to provide the perspective I had in my dream.

 

With only one further comment:

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary

http://business.timesonline...

"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.” "

Go ahead.  Lynch the third richest man for having a conscience, that evil man...

 

The following is a reworked, lengthened, and more comprehensive stand-alone version of an article that I posted last year.  Traditional, old-style Republicans need to read this and see how vastly the party had changed and how classical conservative principles have been completely abandoned.

The most dangerous element of the far-right drive to tear down America's protective wall of separation between church and state is the relentless drive to neuter the Constitution of the United States -- and by so doing, deprive Americans of the basic human and Constitutional rights that most of us have grown up to take for granted.

The agenda is simple to understand:

• The theocratic Religious Right political movement that now dominates the Republican Party seeks to use the powers of the State to micromanage many of the most intimate areas of our personal lives
• The Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, guarantees Americans that their basic rights and liberties shall not be violated, ignored, or taken away by the government
• Because the Constitution guarantees a wide range of individual rights, the Constitution has acted as a formidable and frustrating obstacle to the Religious Right's insistence on tightly regulating our personal decisions
• Therefore, in order to deprive Americans of their fundamental liberties of conscience and demand obedience to their version of religious law, they must render the Constitution toothless and unable to protect the rights of Americans.

 

Shamefully -- indeed negligently -- the major news media have given almost zero attention to this anti-Constitutional agenda.  What little has been reported has mainly mentioned the fact that Democrats were filibustering or otherwise opposing some of President Bush's nominees for the federal judiciary -- and nearly all of this reporting has portrayed Senate Democrats in a negative light.  Precious little attention has been given to exploring why Senate Democrats have sometimes resorted to that drastic tactic.

While the political Left has expended vast energy and blog space reporting the scandal surrounding the unconventional firings of federal prosecutors by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, they have all but completely overlooked the fact that Gonzales' alleged politicization of the Justice Department is in fact just one small symptom of the extreme Right's larger agenda of poisoning the judiciary -- a key component of their war on the Constitution.

The extreme Right is waging this war on the Constitution on many fronts at once.  The first front of this war has received almost zero publicity from the (nonexistent) "liberal media."  Only the political fire fights that it has created have been reported: the media's constant depiction of Senate Democrats as "obstructionists" to Bush's nominees to the federal courts.

The Bush Administration, and that one third of Republicans who sent him to Washington to destroy our Constitutional freedoms, want to see him appoint judges like Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork to the federal courts.  They want Bush to use these men as role models because their contempt for our Constitutional rights is total:  Depending on the context and on the person, the views they want sent to the federal bench range from recognizing very, very few Constitutional rights, to recognizing no Constitutional rights at all.

Making a lie of his oath of office -- to protect and defend the Constitution -- Bush has done his valiant best to fulfill quite an opposite mission, appointing corrupt, Constitutionally blind judges who will look the other way when the most basic of human rights are being stomped on.  And when Senate Democrats succeeded in blocking his most dangerous nominees, he has tried every trick in the book to appoint them anyway, whether through recess appointments or by just renominating and renominating the same candidates.  This is deliberate.

Antonin Scalia has written, in the legally significant body of Supreme Court rulings, that:

• The federal courts should have no power at all to overturn unconstitutional laws (Chicago v. Morales, 1999)
• The First Amendment does not apply if a lawmaking body feels that something is "immoral" (Erie v. Pap's A.M., 2000)
• The Constitution does not apply if a community deems something immoral (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003)
• Violating Constitutional rights is perfectly acceptable if it has been traditionally done in the past (i.e. "we have always done it this way")  (Lawrence, and others)
• Literally nullified any meaningful protection in the "free exercise of religion" clause in the First Amendment (Oregon Employment Division v. Smith, 1990) -- a ruling that led to passage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act -- which was itself struck down mainly by the right wing of the Supreme Court.

 

Robert Bork and/or others in the far right judicial mold, have opined that:

• State governments should be free to ignore the Bill of Rights
• Local majorities should enjoy virtually unlimited lawmaking power, regardless of one's human rights
• The definition of "freedom" itself is not freedom to choose your life and pursue happiness, but the "freedom" of elected governments to exert power over others.

 

The Center for Arizona Policy, a Religious Right group affiliated with Focus on the Family, has said as much:

"When Congress makes laws we do not like, we can remove the
objectionable members at the next election; we cannot do so to
renegade Supreme Court Justices who legislate from the bench. A
conservative judge does not impose his will over the will of a
popularly elected official..."

"Conservatives, however, do not value liberty which permits
licentiousness, but rather an ordered liberty which permits freedom
in the context of community values. Conservative judges respect
these values founded on tradition and history, and will respect them
when challenged by claims of individual rights."

The first excerpt is saying that judges should never overturn laws enacted by a legislature, whether it violates your Constitutional rights or not.  The second excerpt is saying that "community values" take priority over your Constitutional rights,  If your "community values" conflict with your Constitutional rights, the community values win -- and the Constitution loses.

Former Congressman and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), in an interview reported in the Washington Times (article no longer available online), has flatly said the following:

"Not zealous. I blame Congress over the last 50 to 100 years
for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the
Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a
separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is
that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is
because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to
privacy is because Congress didn't stop them. "

"Judicial review" refers to the role of the federal courts in overturning unconstitutional laws.  Tom DeLay is joining many others on the extreme Right in saying that the federal courts should have no power to enforce the Constitution and protect your individual rights.

There you have it, in their own words.

The second front in this war on the Constitution is to cripple the courts' authority to protect our Constitutional rights.

Far right groups have directly advocated stripping the federal courts of their power to uphold the Bill of Rights against state and local governments.  The Conservative Caucus, whose views are well represented among Bush's advisors and in the GOP leadership, asks in a candidate questionnaire:

"20. As a member of Congress, would you vote to terminate the jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary with respect to appeals relating to alleged violations of the Bill of Rights by state and local government?"

You can't get any plainer than that.

Toward this end, the far right wing in Congress has worked diligently.  In the infuriatingly falsely titled "Constitution Restoration Act," the right wing of Congress attempted to strip the courts of any power to hear cases that would impinge upon the "Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

You can't get any plainer than that.  They tried to strip the courts of their power to prevent an illegal theocracy in the United States.  This is a direct attempt to remove our access to the redress of grievances, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

And on September 19, 2006, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2679 which, according to the Washington Post, provides that "attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion."

This war on our Constitution is no accident.  Our "Republican" leaders, including our President, who have sworn to uphold our Constitution, are instead mounting a sustained, unrelenting campaign to destroy that same document.  By anyone's definition, this is treason -- not just by the current administration, but by the bigger part of an entire political party's leadership.

This is how total, comprehensive, and overarching is their campaign to destroy the Constitution and the rights it affords.

.

 

"Well, duh," some of you are thinking.

To other readers, this may come as a genuine surprise.

The Alliance Defense Fund claims to support and defend religious freedom.  However, all of that nobility apparently ends when someone from a branch of a major, well-recognized religion wants to marry according to his fundamentalist Mormon faith.

From http://www.onenewsnow.com/2... :

"Chris Stovall, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), says the high court's decision to let the Utah court's ruling stand was solid. "And there are very strong policy reasons," he notes, "which spelled out, I think, in excellent detail by the Utah Supreme Court, for why the government certainly has the power to prohibit polygamy as an approach to marriage that's really antithetical to having a common definition of marriage that operates in the public good."

The ADF itself reports in this press release:

"WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Monday turned away an appeal that argued for the legalization of polygamous relationships.  ADF attorneys filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Family Research Council on Jan. 12 that encouraged the court to deny review of the case. "

Whoops.

So much for religious freedom and the right of a Mormon sect to define the sacred rite of marriage for itself.  But I could have told you that.

Mark my words -- when most Religious Right groups claim to support religious liberty, that claim will become a lie the moment you desire to exercise a liberty that is inconsistent with their religion.

Freedom for themselves while denying it to others.  Nihil novi sub sole.

 

Here's a serious but apolitical topic that is nonetheless important.  Five minutes out of your day can go a long way to protect millions of Americans.

"Phishing" emails.  We all get them.

They are made to appear like legitimate emails from financial institutions, designed to panic you into taking hasty steps to "protect" your account.  These actions, of course, include supplying important personal and account information.

How do you identify a phishing email?  Microsoft has some pointers:

http://www.microsoft.com/pr...

Now, when we receive phishing emails, how many of us simply ignore them?

Don't.  Take the time to forward the fraudulent emails to the actual financial institution that is being impersonated.  They will collect forwarded emails and supply them to investigators.

How do you find out where to forward fraudulent emails?

Manually type in the URL (Web address) of the institution being impersonated.  Do not click on the link in the email itself.  It's a fake.

Look for a link to "Contact Us," "Security," Customer Service," or the like.  Sooner or later you will find instructions on how and where to forward fraudulent emails for investigation.

Here are the reporting email addresses for some of the most frequently impersonated institutions:

• spoof@paypal.com
• spoof@chase.com
• spoof@nafcu.org
• spoof@marincu.org
• spoof@ebay.com
• spoof@citicorp.com
• spoof@wamu.net
• abuse@bankofamerica.com
• reportfraud@downeysavings.com
• reportphish@wellsfargo.com

National reporting email address:  spam@uce.gov

When you get such an email, please take the time and trouble to forward the email to the institution's fraud investigation department.  Each forwarded email that they receive strengthens their case against the perpetrators of email fraud.

 

(Or, come on, just out 'n say it!)

 

Ken Ham, president of Answers In Genesis whom I referenced in another blog comment the other day, has done it again:

""Because after all, if there is no God and there's no absolute authority, who does decide right and wrong? Who does decide good and bad?" he asks. "Those on the other end of the spectrum who believe in moral relativism, of course, wouldn't want to be accountable to God and would want to believe that everything evolved by natural processes. So you'd more suspect that those people would say they believe in evolution ...." "

A recent arrival to b.com said something similar:

"I think people who believe in the theory (remember folks, we're discussing theories here) of evolution do so because they truly don't want to be held accountable to a moral standard. If they believe that a God of some sort created them, then they might be obligated to find out about this God, perhaps even (God forbid! -chuckle ;) obey Him (gasp!) and given the moral climate of this present world, that's not likely to make most people stand up and cheer."

To quote Avril Lavigne in the song Sk8er Boi, can I make it any more obvious?

I could go off in one direction, and suggest that the seemingly primal urge to control other people makes for a very strong motive for propagandists to lie, distort, and/or otherwise misrepresent science as it pertains to evolution and creation.  If the love of money is a root of much evil, then a corollary might be: the love of power is the root of so much deceit.

But I'm curious, and I hereby solicit responses about something else.

Would someone please tell me just which particular rules and "absolutes" do they think we want to get around?

I mean, I don't have any urge to murder anyone or steal their money.  I can't imagine myself ever raping anyone, and I detest liars and dishonesty to such a degree that I'm too frank and forthright for some folk's tastes.  (But, reassuringly, when people get to know my straight-shooting nature, they say unanimously, "don't change a thing.")

So, please tell me, just what is it that you're so concerned about our doing?

Jus' come out and say it.  :-)

 

Since the previous post of this nature was so much fun, let's try another ride on the Starship into the ionosphere of thought.

__________________________

 

How can it be, that some people cannot accept the notion of a universe that always existed, but have no problem accepting the notion of a deity that always existed?

__________________________

 

If God is eternal, then God existed for an infinite duration of time before deciding to create the universe.  What was God doing in this infinite amount of time?

Nothing?  Busy creating an infinite number of universes predating ours?  What?

(Related:  Nuts #4 and #5)

__________________________

 

To people who reject the idea that the universe -- in some form -- could have existed eternally:

Most people have little trouble accepting the idea that the earth may exist in an infinite space -- you can travel an infinite number of miles "up," "down," "left," "right," "forward," and "backward" through space, without ever hitting a wall.  (Nevermind, for now, the earth or any other astronomical body getting in the way.  Pretend you're Casper The Friendly Ghost.  Or a neutrino.)

Not hard to accept, is it?

If it is so easy to accept the possibility that we live in an infinite space, what is so difficult about believing that the universe itself exists on an infinite time line?  If the earth can conceivably occupy a point set within nn infinite volume, what is so inconceivable about our occupying a point along an infinite time line? 

 _________________________

 

Many theists subscribe to the Thomistic metaphysical belief that God "exists out of time."

If God exists outside of time, does that mean that all of time is laid out before him to see?

If so, doesn't that mean that everything that is to take place within the universe has already been predetermined and laid out for God to see?

If so, doesn't that mean we have no choice in our destiny, and therefore cannot be held morally accountable for anything?  See: Determinism.

__________________________

 

If God exists outside of time, can He be anything other than an inert, frozen entity?

It seems to me that if God is a living being and not an inert, frozen entity, then He is capable of various actions -- and some of these actions would precede or follow others -- and He would therefore exist inside of time.

 

__________________________

 

If a miracle occurred, how would you determine that the event was indeed a miracle, and not an unknown or unaccounted-for natural phenomenon?

 

I'm posting this blog as sort of a continuation point for what began under my Creationism post.

So, with no further ado, let me toss out some assorted nuts to crack and kick about:

____________________

 

If it is possible for supernatural agents (like Satan, for example) to deceive people, how can any one person know that s/he is not being deceived right now?

How would you go about proving to yourself, or others, that you are not in a state of deception?  Think of the movie The Matrix, which, alas, has a character called Neo.

Impossible, you say?

____________________

 

If it is impossible for a victim of deception to know that s/he is in a state of deception, how can anyone (a God or anyone else) hold that person morally accountable for being deceived?  Is that not like punishing the victim of a crime?  Is it fair and just, for example, to punish a person for buying stolen goods, when that person -- in good faith -- believed that s/he were purchasing a lawfully obtained product?

Yet according to some versions of Christian theology, God eternally punishes people who have -- through no fault of their own -- been deceived into following "false gods" or into believing that God doesn't exist at all.

____________________

 

It is often suggested that we "follow Christ" rather than follow "Christian leaders."

Many theologians, Bible scholars, and lay believers do just that -- try to follow Christ directly. 

Yet they end up disagreeing on all manner of doctrinal points -- some of them potentially of soteriological import. 

Take the gift of tongues, for instance.  Some Christians, who claim to follow Christ rather than Christian leaders, insist that salvation must be accompanied by the speaking in tongues.  Other Christians, also claiming to follow Christ, are "cessationists" who insist that the gift of tongues has ceased.

How is it possible for two or more people -- who claim to follow Christ and prayerfully seek His guidance -- to come to opposite conclusions on issues of soteriological import?

 _____________________

 

In order to "reject the Gospel" or "reject God's gift of salvation," must'nt one first believe that such a message or gift is real?

Along the lines of the poser two blocks above, how can a person be faulted for "rejecting" something that s/he never became convinced was genuine?  Could a person be faulted for "rejecting" an alleged Picasso because it looks, to him, like a crayon drawing?

It's one thing to say "yes, I know this is real, and I don't want it."  But it's much less culpable to say "this don't look genuine."

Yet, according to some versions of Christian theology, God punishes people simply for "rejecting" things that appear, to them, to have no authenticity to accept.

How does this square with the simplest concepts of justice?

_____________________

 

Many people say that God led them to do certain things or make certain choices.  And people often pray to God in search of answers or guidance.  Presumably they receive these answers, because they keep relying upon prayer.

If this happens, how does one determine that God is the origin of the decision or the giver of the answer?  How do you verify the authenticity of a message or inspiration that seems to come from God -- especially if we throw into the mix all these other, evil beings like Satan who would be perfectly willing to deceive you into thinking that God led you to do this?

(1 John 4:1-4 runs into this problem.  I mean, any lying spirit worth his salt would pose as God or a good spirit.)

In other words, how do you distinguish a calling of God from a calling of an evil spirit -- or even just a calling in your own head?

 

(Or, the sorry state of science education and mainstream media)

 

According to this poll, roughly as many Americans belief that life, including human life, was directly created by God, as do the number of Americans who believe that life arose by evolution from earlier life forms.

I have mixed feelings about this.  On one hand, I have never disrespected people who believe that God created the world.  The inclination to search for order -- and by inference, design -- is a deeply ingrained part of human nature.  The ways that body parts and functions work together do resemble something that a designer might have intentionally created.

To believe in special creation is not the mark of a fool.  It is the mark of a human being.

But on the other hand, I worry about the state of science education, and about the negligence of the nonexistent "liberal media" to set the record straight on this question.

It's true that science-oriented cable channels such as Discovery Channel treat evolution as fact.  (Well, that's because it is.)  But where are the media when it comes to addressing this issue in the detail needed to confront -- in an informed manner -- what has become a political issue?

Needless to say, the anti-evolution side is easily found in the media.  You can hear that side of it by turning on any radio, any time.

But where are the voices in the media for the other side -- the so-called "liberal" side?

As usual, nowhere to be found.  There is nowhere in the mainstream media that one can turn to hear evolutionists patiently explain their side of the story or pick apart and critique creationism.

What's disturbing about this poll is related to this media one-sidedness.  Eighty-two percent of Americans profess to be familiar with evolutionary theory -- a figure that seems very much different from my real-world experience.

Could it be that a large fraction of people who claim to be familiar with evolution are instead familiar with the distortions and misrepresentations of evolution that are broadcast daily through the media?  How many Americans, who claim to understand evolution, then say inaccurate things like "we came from apes?"

This concerns me -- not because some people believe in special creation -- but because of the continued one-sidedness in the media that leaves the secular side nearly voiceless.

 

We hear the statement, "Secular humanism poses a great threat to our institutions and our way of life" recited verbatim almost as if it were the Pledge of Allegiance -- perhaps because we hear the assertion almost as often as the Pledge of Allegiance.  I certainly heard it daily when I was a born-again believer and regular listener to KERI radio.

And it was recently asserted on this blog.

I am now asking for some substantiation, some support, for that assertion.

To be fair, I can understand a bit of the apprehension.  The sensibilities of secular humanist activists seems, shall we euphemistically say, a little dull at times. 

The "Blogswarm against Theocracy," for instance, appeared deliberately timed to lash out during the Easter weekend.  Not only is this, in my opinion, a misdirected swipe at Christianity -- even though I wholeheartedly believe in their mission -- but its timing is even misplaced. 

Most theocrats like to preach their fire-and-brimstone (or, more precisely, gunfire-and-stoning) homilies on or near July 4th.  In other words, a much more appropriate time for the Blogswarm Against Theocracy would have been Independence Day -- and its mission -- by its timing alone -- would have resonated with a far wider audience.

Especially the audience that they are hoping to reach: the moderate religionist.

So, in one sense, I can empathize with the feelings of threat to "our way of life."

But getting back on topic:  I want some real, definitive answers.

>  What are "our institutions?"

> What is "our way of life?"

> How, specifically, does secular humanism threaten either?

> If it indeed threatens either, what about secular humanism makes it worse -- so much worse -- than what it is allegedly trying to supplant?

I have a few inklings, stemming from what seem to be two very different concepts of "America."

Some people identify "America" with the dominance of a particular religion (Christianity) and the observance of a specific social code by a great majority of Americans.  Some take it a little further, and identify America with the traditional dominance of the male gender.  Some take it further still, including the dominance of the white race into the mix. 

But regardless of the strength of the vision embraced by such folk, the basic theme is the same: they identify "America" with the prevalence of a specific culture and its dominant religion.  If these change, America isn't "America" anymore.

Others, such as myself, identify "America" with a paradigm of freedom, opportunity, and individualism -- and the perpetuation of a government structured so as to preserve it.  When I say the Pledge of Allegiance, I'm thinking of a country in which I'm free to pursure my dreams and choose my destiny as I see fit -- as long as I'm not hurting others.  The Pledge itself says much the same thing.  And I think of a country where I have avenues of redress -- ways to legally protect myself should the government start doing things to its citizens that the Law of the Land says it must not do.

The Founding Fathers made it perfectly clear which "America" they were founding.  They put most of their combined effort and brainpower into establishing a nation with legal protections of freedom and provisions for opportunity -- and virtually no effort toward the deliberate perpetuation of a specific dominant culture.

So, I think this, above, may have something to do with it.  From my perspective, secular humanism would strengthen, preserve, and protect our way of life -- if we define "our way of life" as the existence and valuation of America's promise of liberty and opportunity.  (How?  See here:)

But I want to know more from people who make the opposite claim.  Just how does secular humanism "threaten our institutions and our way of life?"

.

 

According to this story, a letter that had been mailed some 50 years ago with a three-cent stamp (the first class rate at the time) has finally reached its destination.

I have personally done something similar, though it involved sending something very old rather than receiving it.

Many years ago, I was given a collection of old books, magazines, and technical manuals on repairing old tube-type radios and TVs.  (If you have a classic Philco or Motorola TV from the 1950s that you'd love to see work again, I can probably fix it.)

Anyhow, one of these manuals from 1954 (I think) included a postage-paid card for a technical school.  At the time, it was known as National Schools.

Out of curiosity, I mailed it.

And I did get something back.  I received a completely current promotional booklet from National Technical Schools.

It was neat to actually receive something after mailing such an old card.  I only wished for one thing.

I wish I was there to see the look on the face of the employee who received and processed that ancient postcard from a 1950s tech manual.

 

The United States of America was never, in any formal, official, or de jure sense, a Christian nation by design.

Have the majority of Americans always been Christians?  Yep.  Nobody's disputing that.

Did many of the Founding Fathers look upon religious faith, especially Christianity, as a source of virtuous behavior?  Yep.

Has the Bible exerted a significant influence upon all of American culture?  Yup.

But were the overwhelming majority of Founding Fathers "orthodox Christians" who deliberately established a formal Christian nation, as in a Christian State?  Nope, not a hint of any such intention.

The Federalist Papers contain extensive writings by three influential Founding Fathers:  Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and none other than the chief architect of the Constitution himself, James Madison.

Sift through all 85 of these writings, and you will find not one hint of any intention to establish an officially Christian nation.  The Federalist Papers mention not Jesus, not Christ, not the Bible, nor was the Christian faith introduced as a topic of political architecture.  Nowhere is the word "holy" used.  The Federalist #19 -- alone -- mentions Christianity in a passing manner: "In the early ages of Christianity, Germany was occupied by seven distinct nations, who had no common chief."

If the Founding Fathers had intended to establish an officially Christian nation, the failure of the Federalist Papers even to touch upon the subject is an inexplicable abyss of silence.

Neither do the Anti-Federalist papers suggest such a thing; none mention Jesus, Christ, or the Bible; God is mentioned only five times; and just one (#73) notes the existence of state-level formal establishments of religion -- and explicitly contrasts this with the ideal of perfect freedom of conscience:

"Unfortunately, they do not stand single, and this is not the only instance that we find in the constitutions of the different states, of a general principle being expressly declared as a part of the natural rights of the citizens, and afterwards being as expressly contradicted in the practice. Thus we find it declared in every one of our bills of rights, "that there shall be a perfect liberty of conscience, and that no sect shall ever be entitled to a preference over the others." Yet in Massachusetts and Maryland, all the officers of government, and in Pennsylvania the members of the legislature, are to be of the Christian religion..."

Not only is the sheer absence of any stated intent to form a Christian nation a compelling argument against it, but had ours ever been an officially Christian nation, the National Reform Association -- a group that still exists today -- would never have felt the need to press for a Constitutional amendment that would have formally recognized this as a Christian nation.

I mean, why would this organization -- in the 19th century -- seek passage of a Constitutional amendment to establish what had already been the case?

Of course.  It never was the case that this was a formally Christian nation -- so the National Reform Association sought to make it so.

But wait; there's more.

The Treaty of Tripoli reads, in part:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This treaty was unanimously approved on the Senate floor on June 7, 1797 and signed by President John Adams.

James Madison, the Constitution's chief designer, can hardly be construed as an advocate of a formal religious state.  His famous Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments says it all:

"1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

2. Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former... "

it goes on and on.  The above was only the beginning.

And just how "orthodox" were many of our Founding Fathers?  George Washington, oft quoted as a fount of Christian government opinion, was the Worshipful Master of his own Masonic Lodge.  Not only were the Freemasons, then and now, strong supporters of church/state separation, but Freemasonry has long been deemed incompatible with orthodox Christianity.  Of all these allegedly orthodox Christian founders, Washington was obviously not one of them.

So, folks, there you have it.  Have at me.  :-)  All of my points, I have substantiated by direct links.  Nobody's posts will be deleted for offering a rebuttal or challenge to my position.

"No union exists between church and state, and perfect freedom of opinion is guaranteed to all sects and creeds." - President James K. Polk, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1845.

Here's an interesting story of intolerance for free speech that has a close parallel on what some would consider the "other side of the political fence":

http://www.contracostatimes...

"War display has varied meanings

"The objections to the crosses erected across from the Lafayette BART station are very puzzling. How can people who are so supportive of troops going to Iraq to establish democracy find the exercise of free speech so offensive?"

And http://edition.cnn.com/2006...

"Hillside crosses marking fallen soldiers stir debate

"LAFAYETTE, California (AP) -- Hundreds of white wooden crosses planted on a quiet suburban hillside have prompted a debate over whether they honor or exploit the memory of troops killed in Iraq.

Jeff Heaton, who along with local peace group members started putting up the crosses in early November, sees the effort as a simple tribute.

"It seemed like it would be a touching way to make people aware of the true costs of the war," he said.

But to others, the display, on private property opposite a commuter train station and visible from the heavily traveled highway to San Francisco, is an affront that uses personal grief for political ends."

And more info, not quoted here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-b...

http://www.sacbee.com/110/s...

Now, here's the parallel.

Does that field of crosses remind you of anything?

Something each January?

On church yards?

Abortion stops a beating heart?

That's it.  It reminds me of those fields of crosses erected by pro-life advocates to memorialize the millions of unborn babies killed since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973.

I, for one, can't get upset over the church displays, because the pro-lifer in me will never die.  It has simply become more pragmatic and realistic, leavened by age and, I would like to think, a better view of the bigger picture.

But among people who are insulted by these churches' political statements each January, I haven't heard any demands by abortion-rights supporters to curtail these churches' free speech.

Someone tell me, have there been acts of vandalism against these pro-life displays over the years?  Has anyone tried to suppress these churches' rights to free speech?

Or is the desire to suppress controversial speech a one-sided ailment in our culture?

 

Burned again by that giver of false promises, George W. Bush.  This is why we despise this parisan man who feels obligated to serve 13% of the United States -- while saying "to hell with everyone else, you just don't count."

Immediately defying his hollow, lying "spirit" of bipartisanship after the Democratic election rout, Bush is resubmitting a platter of freedom-hating, anti-Constitutional judicial nominees that have already been rejected once or more by the Senate.  He is using his now-lame duck Senate not to move toward bipartisanship, but as a last-chance hurrah to spit in America's eye one more time.

Take, (please), the renomination of Terrence Boyle.  He is critiqued here for an unbelievable disregard for even basic individual rights, to wit:

"The Fourth Circuit has criticized Judge Boyle several times for prematurely throwing out cases despite the persistence of facts in dispute. In Fuller v. White, a pregnant woman claimed that a prison guard used excessive force against her and caused her to miscarry. Judge Boyle granted summary judgment after insisting there were no genuine factual disputes, even though the parties’ affidavits contradicted one another. A unanimous Fourth Circuit reversed.24 Three years earlier, Judge Boyle did the same thing. In Moore v. Morton, the Fourth Circuit reversed him, finding that the case should not have been disposed of on summary judgment because both the plaintiff claiming to be the victim of excessive force and the sheriff alleged to have used it had put forward substantial supporting evidence.25

"In Godon v. North Carolina Crime Control & Pub. Safety,26 a boot camp counselor claimed that her supervisors violated her First Amendment rights when they fired her for complaining about the treatment of black and female cadets. Judge Boyle dismissed the case, finding that the counselor’s speech was not a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment, but rather merely a personal expression of dissatisfaction. A unanimous Fourth Circuit panel, including conservative Judges Niemeyer and Wilkinson, reversed.27 On remand, Judge Boyle again threw out the case, granting summary judgment against the counselor. The Court of Appeals again reversed.28 A unanimous panel found that factual disputes – "some of which the district court seems to have recognized"29 – persisted."

Then there is Michael B. Wallace, critiqued here for, among other things, believing that the federal courts should have almost no power to overturn unconstitutional laws -- a recurring theme among the far right.  (Begin reading at page 32 of the above link for further information.)

This is why we despise the self-serving George W. Bush.  We have placed hope in him time and time again, and each and every time, he has chosen to spit in America's eye -- again -- and again -- and again.  The next time someone asks, "why don't you support our President?", remind him that this President has never, on even one occasion, treated the majority of Americans as if they count for anything.

I will not vote for one single Republican again until these pure-partisan, vicious, freedom-hating powerbrokers are beaten out of power within the Republican Party.

 

A little something came over my e-wire yesterday that really ought to knock a few new eyes wide open -- eyes of good folk who think that voting for "pro-life" and "pro-family" "conservative" candidates will result in anything resembling same:

http://www.alainsnewsletter...

"Will Liberals Succeed in Going On the Offense?"

"Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America said, "common sense" initiatives might include requiring health insurance coverage for birth control, emergency contraception at hospitals for rape victims, sex education, and information on contraceptives for young people."

..."Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council anticipates "the fiercest assault of our time against abstinence, marriage, life, good judges, and religious freedom," he wrote in this week’s National Review."

..."It remains to be seen if Americans, who want to preserve decency, will stand by and watch as the moral foundations of the nation are chipped away at even more."

.

What's this?  Policies aimed at reducing unwanted pregnancies -- the source of most abortions -- is a bad thing?  Providing meaningful information on some of life's most important decisions is an assault on "decency"???  Being unafraid of human sexuality makes one a "liberal?"

Yep, I told you so.  People who follow my blogs know that when I warn, "don't make me say I told you so," know that I am never wrong when I give such warnings.

"Pro-life" politics -- as typified by those who put "pro-life" up in lights under a "conservative" banner -- are not about sparing the lives of unborn babies, and they never have been.  That noble, appealing goal invariably takes a back seat on a very long bus to their real agenda: legislating into place their psychotic, terrified, and Biblically unfounded fear of human sexuality.

Voters need to know that when a candidate campaigns on "pro-family" values or "conservative values," this is what they mean.  These are not Christian values or Biblical teachings -- these are Victorian remnants from times and places like Cincinnati and Peoria in the 1950s -- and are so bizarre and Taliban-like that even most conservative fundamentalist Christians would be shocked to know the truth.

And of local importance, these are the "conservative values" that a certain highly militant church in Northwest Bakersfield is trying to smuggle into the Kern High School District.

When it is considered an assault on "decency" and "our moral foundations" to provide any meaningful and factual information on human sexuality, now you know why people like me refer to them as the "American Taliban."

There are many issues on which I agree with Republicans more than Democrats.

But not one single Republican is going to get my vote until these people are driven the hell out of what used to be the Republican Party that I remember.

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
.
Does the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, reflect an individual right, or merely the right of the militia?
.
The answer is the former, with a spotty yet pretty consistent trail of Supreme Court and state Supreme Court case law to back it up.  
.
I will also show that our Second Amendment rights are most secure under a consistent application of liberal Constitutional legal theory, and are most jeopardized by the ultraconservative theories of the judges that President Bush wants to place on the federal bench.  And, I will show that our Second Amendment rights depend upon a presumption of the human species that is most consistent with a liberal, humanistic worldview.
.
Intent of the Founding Fathers
.
The most obvious indication that the Second Amendment was intended as an individual right is the fact that every other phrase in the Bill of Rights that refers to rights of the "people" was written and intended to refer to individuals.  The Second Amendment is deeply embedded in the portion of the Bill of Rights that guarantees individual rights, rather than perhaps tacked alongside the Tenth Amendment, where it might be construed to be strictly a state right.
.
During the ratification of the Constitution, the state of New Hampshire made the official recommendation that "Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion."  At the Massacusetts ratifying convention, Samuel Adams urged an amendment guaranteeing the individual right to bear arms.  New York, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania likewise called for a specific protection for the individual right to firearms.
.
Early Court Rulings Assume Individual-Rights Interpretation
.
Prior to the Civil War, many state court rulings clearly reflected the assumption that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right rather than merely a states-rights issue or a state militia privilege.
.
In Aldridge v. Commonwealth (1824), an appellate court in Virginia dealt with the rights of free Blacks, the restrictions upon which were "inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, both of this State and of the United States," including "their right to bear arms."
.
In Simpson v. State (1833), the Tennessee Supreme Court said of the state constitution's equivalent of the Second Amendment, "By this clause of the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the state to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualification whatever as to their kind or nature." [Italic emphasis mine.]
.
In State v. Reid (1840), the Alabama Supreme Court upheld a ban on carrying concealed guns and knives.  However, the ban was upheld on the assumption that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right:  "The evil which was intended to be remedied by the provision quoted [the right to keep and bear arms], was a denial of the right of Protestants to have arms for their defence, and not an inhibition to wear them secretly."
.
And in Nunn v. State (1846), the Supreme Court of Georgia referred to the Second Amendment in reversing the conviction of a man wrongfully charged with openly carrying a firearm: "inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void."
.
The Supreme Court Weighs In
.
The Supreme Court has had surprisingly little to say about the Second Amendment.  Some of what it has said should come as a stern warning to today's demands for appointing more "conservatives" to the federal courts.
.
In Cruikshank v. United States (1876), a conservative Supreme Court mirrored today's most extreme "conservative" legal thought in holding that the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) only restrained the federal government -- states were free to restrict or ban firearms to their hearts' content.  But even Cruikshank considered the Second Amendment an individual immunity rather than a mere collective militia-based right asserted by some liberal scholars.
.
Presser v. Illinois (1886) reached the same conclusion, holding that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government.  Yet Presser, as well, considered the amendment to be an individual immunity of some sort.  Had the amendment represented only a collective militia right, the plaintiff would not have found standing to lodge a Second Amendment complaint.
.
In both cases, the Second Amendment was indeed considered an individual right rather than a militia or state right.  The cases merely ruled that the the amendment only shielded individuals from the federal government.
.
Even the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) case observed that if Blacks were considered citizens, it "would give to persons of the negro race... to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."  The right to keep and bear arms was seen as an individual right.
.
And while United States v. Miller (1939) examined limitations on what kinds of arms could be restricted, it lends support to the view that the collective role of the militia arises from the individual right to keep and bear arms: "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
.
The Second Amendment and Liberal Constitutional Theory
.
The architect of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, in the first session of the 42nd Congress (March 29, 1871), listed the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights, as being the rights of individual citizens.  Moreover, he stressed, in no uncertain terms, that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment rendered the Bill of Rights binding upon the States:
.
"These eight articles I have shown never were limitations on the power of the States, until made so by the Fourteenth Amendment.  The words of that Amendment, 'no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,' are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union."
.
The Second Amendment was counted among those rights of the citizens of the United States.  
.
(As an aside, the fact that the conservative court that issued the Presser decision had twisted the 14th Amendment into something far narrower than its author intended -- shows that ultraconservative judges are the ones with the activist agenda, much moreso than "liberal judges.")
.
Today, far right legal theorists -- like those favored by the Bush Administration -- want to tear down the Bill of Rights as it applies to states.  When you realize that most gun bans and gun restrictions come from the state and local level, the ascendance of "conservative" judicial theory within the federal judiciary would effectively spell the end of your Second Amendment rights.
.
Dangers to our Second Amendment rights have been justified by other legal tricks and ruses routinely advocated by "conservative judges."  In Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), the court used the fact that "protecting public morals" has been used to justify exemptions to the First Amendment, to itself justify encroachments upon the Second:
.
"Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..."
.
In other words, be careful what you ask for.  If you want to see judges appointed who will declare arbitrary and poorly founded reasons to curtail freedom of the press, those same judges will likely devise poorly founded excuses to curtail your gun rights.
.
The Second Amendment's Humanistic Worldview
.
Finally, it's worth pointing out that the Second Amendment is consistent with a liberal, humanistic vision of human nature.
.
It might seem, at first, that the right to own firearms is necessary because of the evil element in society, thus an emphasis on the dark side of human nature.
.
However, what the Second Amendment actually assumes is that the evil element is a small minority.  It assumes, much to the contrary, that the great majority of Americans can be trusted to own deadly weapons and use them responsibility.  
.
In other words, the Second Amendment assumes the inherent goodness of the vast majority of human beings -- a thoroughly humanistic worldview.
.
Moreover, it's easy to conclude that if the Founders felt that the great majority of citizens could be trusted to own deadly force, then those same citizens can likewise be trusted to make every other life decision responsibly, whether what books to read, whom to sleep with, or even using marijuana.  If we can be trusted with deadly weapons, it follows that we can be trusted with liberties of less gravity as well.
.
The greatest statement in favor of human freedom of choice may be -- of all things -- the Second Amendment.
.

In another of my arcane, abstruse dissertations on Constitutional law and theory, I will show that the Bush judicial nominees that Senate Democrats filibustered really are the bizarre, insane fringies that needed to be stopped.
.
Let's look at this proposal by Judge Charles W. Pickering, whose ill-fated nomination was withdrawn in 2004:
.
http://www.washtimes.com/co...
.
He proposed this Amendment:
.
"The Constitution and the amendments thereto duly adopted in the future may be changed, modified, amended or added to only by amendment duly adopted as outlined in Article V of the Constitution. Neither the Supreme Court nor the inferior courts will create law, change, modify, amend, or add to the Constitution, but will interpret the Constitution and amendments in accordance with the common understanding of the relevant provision at the time it was adopted. This amendment does not affect the weight to be given prior decisions under the Doctrine of stare decisis."
.
Sounds good...  Or does it?
.
Not only is it dangerous because it essentially tells judges how to think, but it all but prohibits judges from drawing simple logical deductions from the text of the Constitution.  But first things first.
.
The "understanding of the relevant provision at the time it was adopted" would leave many of the rights we take for granted unprotected.  When the First Amendment was adopted, there would be no protection whatsoever for broadcast media, cable media, satellite media, or the Internet, since none of these existed at the time.  The Founders couldn't possibly have had these in mind, so the First Amendment would not protect them.
.
Next, the Founders didn't envision today's plethora of state and federal agencies.  Since the First Amendment only mentions Congress, all of these other state agencies would enjoy unlimited regulatory power, since the Founders were only thinking of restraining Congress back in 1791.
.
Pickering writes, "What brought on this unfortunate fight? The transfer of all the hot button social issues: Partial-birth abortion, abortion for teenagers without parental consent or even parental notification, same-sex "marriage," references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, at public buildings, ceremonies and institutions, display of the Ten Commandments in public places, rewriting history to delete all references to a religious motivation in the settling and building of America, and hard-core and child pornography -- are being settled in the courts of our land rather than in legislative bodies. "
.
What Pickering -- and his proposed amendment -- are basically saying is that judges not be permitted to draw even simple logical deductions from the Constitution, since doing so would amount to "creating law."
.
Let's explore where this leads.
.
The First Amendment forbids Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  Now, let's say that Congress, or your state, passes a law requiring parents to enroll their children in government-run schools.
.
You might say "Wait just a rock pickin' minute!  I'm a devout Christian, and I have the right to educate my children in schools of my own religion!"

.

Sorry, no can do.  For a judge to conclude that "free exercise of religion" means "the right to enroll your kids in the school of your choice" would amount to that judge "creating law" -- since the latter conclusion doesn't physically appear in the Constitution.

.
The same applies to any other case in which a judge would look at a broadly written Constitutional right and derive from it a more specific right.  Under Pickering's theory, all that would remain of your First Amendment religious freedoms is the right to kneel before the God of your choice and pray.
.
But wait; there's even more.
.
This further proves Bush to be a bald-faced liar when he claims to seek judges who will "strictly interpret the Constitution."  The Pickering Amendment would require almost the opposite: it would require judges to double as historians and reach outside the Constitution and into the oftentimes debatable issues of American history to divine the proper application of a passage of the Constitution.
.
Strict constructionism, this isn't.  It's very much the opposite of Bush's stated claim for what he wants in a federal judge.
.
Senate Democrats were entirely justified in blocking the nominations of nuts like Pickering.  Unlike what the negligent media have neglected to tell you, Senate Democrats were blocking judicial nominees who would essentially reduce the Constitution to zero.
.
While you're kneeling to the God of your choice, you'd be wise to include a heartfelt prayer of thanks to Senate Democrats for shielding your most basic Constitutional protections from total destruction by the judicial nominees that Bush has gone out of his way to nominate.
.

NO WAY is this just "supply and demand."  Don't even give me that tripe.
.
I'm about to do something that I have always been very resistant to doing: buy into a liberal conspiracy theory.
.
Who else has noticed that the price of gas has gouged upward 12 full cents since the election, just four days ago?
.
No way is this just supply and demand at work.  Don't even give me that oil-company apologetic garbage.
.
This is conscious, and this is deliberate.  It's just too freaky to be coincidental.
.
1.  Lower the gas prices to help get Republicans elected.
2.  Republicans lose control of Congress.
3.  Punish the people and gouge us while we're still powerless.
.
Watch out, gougers.  We're only powerless for two more months.
.

On MSNBC's Scarborough Country, political commentator Pat Buchanan correctly noted that Democratic candidates, almost without exception, completely avoided what he and I consider to be the most important issues -- even if from opposite sides of the fence.
.
Focus on the family, an anti-freedom big-government advocate, offers its most recent post-electoral lament (at the time of this writing) here:
.
http://www.citizenlink.org/...
.
I'll touch the judicial appointments issue one more time, briefly:
.
"Turning to the Senate:

• Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., will be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said Sen. Leahy's probable chairmanship will "undoubtedly become known as the worst of the unintended consequences" of the '06 elections.

"His impact on the confirmation of federal appeals-court judges will repeat the 'black hole' experience of the period of May 2001 through January 2003, when Leahy also chaired the committee," Hausknecht said.

"For example, the same month that Leahy became chairman in 2001, John Roberts was nominated for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals," he said. "Some 19 months later, Leahy still hadn't even given him a hearing.

"He treated 11 other nominees with similar contempt," Hausknecht added.

Pro-family legal analysts expect nothing different out of Leahy this time, Hausknecht added.

"I also anticipate that any openings on the Supreme Court will engender a campaign of obstruction, led by Leahy, of such magnitude that it will make Justice Alito's contentious confirmation process look like a walk in the park," he said."
.
I'll reiterate once more:  Appointing freedom-hating, Constitutionally blind agenda-driven judges to the federal courts is the far right's top priority.  If Leahy takes the chairmanship again, our Constitutional freedom is a little bit safer.
.
But there's more:
.
""What they are going to have votes on, instead, will be increased federal funding for comprehensive sex-ed programs; they will also try to water-down the current pro-life provisions that prevent federal funding for abortions, particularly in military hospitals overseas. So the tone of Congress is going to change."...

..."Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have both consistently voted for the pro-abortion position on issues," Christensen said. "They have taken extreme positions on increased federal funding for Title X (sex-education) programs and programs that put money into the coffers of Planned Parenthood. They have not supported the issues that most pro-lifers, most values voters, support at all.""
.
Being "pro-family," in the Religious Right, simply means being anti-sex, fearful of anything that treats human sexuality openly and honestly.  Their fear of sex education, and their desire to suppress it, is so far out of the American mainstream that even most religious conservatives consider it misguided.
.
And pro-life?  Hell no.  I have an unassailable pro-life background, having wanted to join Operation Rescue at one time.  That's one reason why I consider the Religious Right's fear of sex woefully misguided -- not only is their desire to suppress sex education nowhere justified by the Bible, but statistics and results show that the societies with the lowest rates of abortion are the societies with the most open and honest attitude toward sexuality.
.
Conservatives can rightly criticize the hard-core coastal Left for being out of touch with mainstream America.  But what many voters don't know -- and Democrats, for some reason, aren't telling -- is that the Religious Right leadership, and the lawmakers they helped elect -- are equally out of touch with mainstream American values, out of touch even with the values of most Christian conservatives.
.
Buchanan is right.  Why the silence on these issues, Dems?  The best thing about Democratic control is being talked about -- but only by the far right wing.  They need to be answered in the public square.
.

.
.
Given what looks like will be a Democratic-controlled Senate, our Constitutional freedoms are a bit safer.  For now.

.

For the past six years, the GOP-dominated Senate Judiciary Committee has rubber-stamped far-right judicial nominees, many of whom harbor an absolute, complete, total disregard for the Constitution and its guaranteed rights and freedoms.  The worst nominees have been stopped by Senate filibuster.
.
Expect a different rubber stamp to get a little workout unless President Bush lives up to his promise to act in a bipartisan manner:  REFUSED.
.
While freedom-haters like Rick Santorum and (most likely) George Allen have been defeated in their Senate re-election races, there are still plenty far-right senators who have made it a top priority to pack the federal courts with judges who will turn a blind eye to your Constitutional liberties.  
.
Take South Dakota Senator John Thune, who ousted the long-standing Democrat Tom Daschle.  Please.  Thune has a special page in his nook of the Senate web site that is devoted to packing the federal courts.
.
His statement therein, "I believe that we should appoint judges to the federal bench who will abide by and apply the rule of law, instead of activist judges who try and create law" is very deceptive.
.
In reality, what people like Thune deem an "activist judge" is any judge who declares even one meddlesome law unconstitutional.  And any time that a judge deduces from the Bill of Rights that Americans are guaranteed a particular personal liberty, that judge is bashed for "creating law."
.
Wrong.  They're just doing their jobs.
.
I return once again to the immortal Federalist Paper #78, written by founding father Alexander Hamilton:
.
"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly
essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I
understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the
legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no
bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of
this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the
medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts
contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this,
all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to
nothing..."
.
"But it is easy to see, that it would require an
uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful
guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had
been instigated by the major voice of the community."
.
The top priority of the far right wing has been to hand-pick judges who will refuse to perform this duty.  In the words of Hamilton, "all the reservations of particular rights and priveleges would amount to nothing."
.
Freedom is a bit safer now.  But we still have some bad senators to defeat.
.
America can do it.
.
.

What's really at stake this November?  For about 13 percent of Americans -- the 13 percent that President Bush caters heavily to -- the stake is the intentional destruction of Constitutional liberty in the United States.  The 13 percent that, in the form of James Dobson and Ted Haggard, enjoy the President's private ear for an unbelievable hour every week.
.
Nobody outside the Beltway, and few people inside the Beltway, enjoy such an extraordinary level of catered, red carpet service by this President.
.
And I'm about to tell you why.

.

Focus on the Family, a big-government, anti-freedom Religious Right group, warns as follows:

http://www.citizenlink.org/...
"Conservative pundits and pro-family legal analysts say if liberals gain control of Congress on Tuesday, the fate of future conservative judicial nominees will hang in the balance.
.

With them, according to Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst of Focus on the Family Action, will hang the fates of pre-born babies, marriage and religious liberty.
.

"The success of the president's judicial appointments depends on conservative control of the Senate," he said."
.
Concerned Women for America notes:
http://www.cwfa.org/article...
"But there is nothing more problematic for America’s future than the threat of judicial activism. It is no secret how the left would handle that challenge; they promoted 22 filibusters of qualified conservative judicial nominees. "
.
That's the far right's top priority: pack the federal courts with corrupt, biased judges who have little to zero respect for the Constitution and its guaranteed individual rights.
.
Don't be fooled by the term, "conservative judicial nominees."
.
The definition these Religious Right groups impart to "conservative" is infuriatingly deceptive -- and is the exact opposite of what "conservative" used to mean.
.
"Conservative" used to mean "limited government."
Religious Right-friendly "conservative" judges believe in nearly unlimited government.
.
The logic is simple to follow:
.
1.  The Religious Right, America's Taliban, hates personal freedom with every fiber of their being.
2.  The Constitution represents an absolute line in the sand against government intrusion and mistreatment -- the Constitution, the highest law in the land, tells government what it may and may not do to the citizens that it governs.  The Constitution enshrines rights and freedoms that no government may lawfully violate.
3.  The judges appointed to the federal courts -- especially the Supreme Court -- are the Constitution's enforcers.  They are, in effect, the police to enforce Constitutional law upon government.
4.  Therefore, the far Religious Right must disable the Constitution and its system of checks and balances.  One of their means of trying to nullify our Constitutional liberties is to pack the courts with judges who will refuse to uphold it.
.
Judges serve lifetime appointments.  Therefore, our Constitutional rights will suffer a lifetime of damage unless the far right is stopped.
.
Stopping them requires a Democratic majority in the Senate.
.
When you vote next Tuesday, vote not just for yourself, but for your children.  And your grandchildren.  Don't jeopardize the freedoms that they grew up to take for granted.
.
For more detailed information on the grave danger that our Constitutional liberties face, see my recent blog post:
http://people.bakersfield.c...
.