The Gay Thing: Mississippi Latest State to Embrace Bigotry Over Equality

I realized I'd better get a new post up, before people thought Greenlee Gazette had gone out of business or something! Truth is, as I've noted in my rare posts of late, blogging seems somehow redundant and unnecessary these days. The whole point of it was for me to express thoughts and feelings that I didn't think were being expressed anywhere. And along the way to entertain and to sometimes educate or help illuminate the dark corners of a story that otherwise gets a lot of play.

Lately--with the exception of the occasional horrific terrorist attach or other world event that takes the news cycle for a day or two--there has been a steady sameness to the news. Every day, in fact, you can find out if anything is going on in the world by turning on any of the cable news channels in the morning. If you are nothing is going on in the world. At least nothing you won't find without digging.

greeted with a round-table discussion of a) how the Republicans can try to stop the Donald Trump juggernaut, or b) how today's news is bad for Hillary Clinton, you can be fairly sure

And I'm sorry to say, blogosphere, that it's sort of anesthetized me to my usual desire to find out anyway. I promise it isn't a permanent condition, but it is a persistent one. So, I need to start paying attention.

Baby steps. Here's one: there is a wave of anti-gay, pro-"religious freedom" bills and laws sweeping the country. The scare quotes are deliberate, because these things are religious freedom in name only. The only thing I've yet to figure out is how many advocates for them (in and outside of politics) really believe the rhetoric behind them, and how many know better, that they're a way to whittle down the successes of the gay rights movement. I'm guessing it's something of a mixture, sort of akin to the Kinsey Scale, only measuring homophobia and religious fervor.

But since I'm sort of easing back into the blogging thing, let's go the humor route to get our feet wet, shall we?

Mississippi Anti-Gay Tourism Video from Funny Or Die

Forget Pot; Why Hasn't Big Liquor Fixed Antiquated State Laws?

This past election cycle, I was onboard our "Legalize It" effort here in Ohio, both for personal and logical reasons. Marijuana should be regulated, taxed and legal in my estimation. It is demonstrably safer than alcohol, which is legal. Moreover, there is a wave of acceptance sweeping the nation for legal pot, rivaled only by the same-sex marriage wave that successfully swept through over the last several years. So, why not?

Ah, dare to dream.

But when you think about it, it's rather amazing that pot is making such headway, when liquor has such a confusing and often times stupid set of restrictions in place against it, from state to state. I'm not talking about age restrictions, here either. I really don't have much problem with 21-and-over being the place we draw the line. Though, honestly, it does make you wonder why "adulthood" is legally scattered from 18-to-21 depending upon what area of law we're talking about. But that's another issue for another day.

If you wants it, you points to it, you
sick, degenerate drinker you!
But NOT on Sunday!!! Heathen!!!

The reason for my interest in this issue has to do with having moved back to Ohio after 20 years in Las Vegas. Liquor laws in Las Vegas are quite liberal, and I was used to being able to run down to Lee's Discount Liquor and buying whatever I wanted, just about whenever I wanted. Prices were reasonable, and there was a lot of competition. You could by most kinds of alcohol just about anywhere in Vegas, from a liquor store to a Walmart, to a grocery, corner quickie mart or even Sam's Club or Costco. Obviously, a dedicated store would have more varieties in both brands and higher proofs, but if you wanted honest-to-god vodka, you could find it just about anywhere.

Not in Ohio. Ohio restricts where you buy it, and when you can buy it. Beyond that, they further slice it by what kind of alcohol, and what proof. I can walk into most grocery or warehouse stores and pick up wine, beer and a bewildering variety of beer- and wine-based pseudo liquors. Sometimes, if you're diluted by half. No joke. Watered down. Most times, if you want a full variety of choices, you have to go to a dedicated state-run liquor store, or be lucky enough to have a grocer that has a full-fledged liquor store within their store. Most don't. Even stores that say they do often don't. Those that do charge far more than I used to pay back in my desert home. And there are restricted hours. Want to pick up something for a party before 1pm on a Sunday? Tough.
lucky, they also have spirits. But virtually always, those spirits are

Paradise in Las Vegas!

Dedicated stores are often dingy, sorrowful looking affairs that make you feel dirty when you walk in the door. If they have any browseable liquor, it's the cheap stuff, with top-shelf brands behind the counter. You literally have to point to what you want, and have them hand it to you. It feels like you're buying porn or something. But there is a world outside of Ohio, and even Las Vegas for that matter. When we've ventured out of our newly re-adopted state, we've made stops in other states, checking out how they do things. West Virginia has more liberal laws, though I can't say the stores I've visited have been particularly inviting. Pennsylvania may have arcane laws, but I must've hit one store at the right time in Pittsburgh, because it had a decent selection, and decent prices. Still nothing like Sin City. Iowa offers a decent grocer-based option, with separate-but-attached liquor stores by the main grocery. Prices are better than Ohio, if not great. And time restrictions are also better.

Binny's! Now that's what I'm talking about!

That was a reasonable option on our recent visit, and we were set to pick up a carload for our home bar. But we ran out of time, and just didn't get around to it. Undeterred, we decided to find something on the way home. At a gas fill-up in Illinois, we noticed our truck stop had a dedicated liquor store. Cool! We grabbed a couple of bottles of whiskey (priced above Nevada, but below Ohio), but were told, in broken English, that we were too early. No sales on Sunday before 10 am! It was 9:15. Okay, then, back on the road. I plugged my request into my phone, and huzzah!!! A liquor discount store in Champaign called "Binny's." And it was right off the freeway!

This is not an ad, but let me tell you, it was a real discovery. It was like Vegas, only better actually. Illinois may very well have perplexing liquor laws that I'm not privy to. But this store was big, it had huge variety. It had low, low prices. And the people were super-friendly. Even Lee's Discount Liquor didn't manage that, most days. Suffice it to say, we stocked up. And just for example, a handle-bottle of JD was at least $20 cheaper there, no joke.

But all of this got me to wondering: why is it this way? Why does each state have a hodge-podge of antiquated, religiously tinged, ridiculous liquor laws in almost 2016? I realize, even Ohioans don't have it as bad as some other--particularly Southern--states, whose laws can be downright bizarre. But why do brewers, distillers and other liquor companies put up with it? Why would they make special, diluted spirits just for Ohio? These are huge companies in some cases. Isn't there a liquor lobby? Wouldn't Lee's or Binny's like to have big box stores in Columbus or Cincinnati? Wouldn't Costco, Sam's or even Kroger? I really don't get it. But I'd like to see a ballot initiative! Maybe if the liquor lobby scratched the marijuana lobby's back. . .

The Gay Thing: Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Given ONE MORE DAY?

Okay, long story short, after the Supreme Court effectively legalized marriage between same-sex couples in the entire United States, there was some foot-dragging and stone-walling by several elected officials. They were scattered around the country, and most have been resolved. But there's this clerk in Kentucky--represented by muckraking Right Wing World attorneys, naturally--who is loudly and proudly defiant in the face of the ruling.

She was thought to have exhausted all potential trump cards, and should have had to start issuing licenses on Tuesday morning. She didn't. She is brazenly defying all courts including the Supremes, using extraordinarily flimsy, baseless, illogical and frankly goofy reasoning. But, since she's an elected official, she can't get fired directly. But she is in contempt of court, and also refusing to do her job, though she won't resign. She hasn't got a legal leg to stand on, but she's still stamping her feet.

Thrice-divorced, four-times-traditionally married marriage defender,
Kim Davis, in stunning blue. From source, LGBTQNation.

All of this is made somewhat hilarious by the fact that this woman, Kim Davis, has apparently been married four times and divorced three. She continues to conflate "holy matrimony" with civil marriage, confuses the county courthouse with a church, and confuses her government job with some sort of religious consecration. She's either a dim bulb, a nutbar or a disingenuous grafter hoping for a big score and some fame. But for some reason, they're giving her yet another day to come to her senses.

But here's a point to ponder, for any of you Kim Davis supporters out there:

Should a Muslim DMV worker be allowed to refuse issuing drivers licenses to women, if he says it's against his religion? How would that be any different?

[Excerpt]

Judge: Kim Davis has until end of day Wednesday to respond
 
A federal judge says a Kentucky county clerk who won’t issue marriage licenses to gay couples because of her religious beliefs has until close of business Wednesday to respond to the latest motion in the case. . .

Read more at: LGBTQNation

The Gay Thing: Ted Cruz's Disingenuous "Religious Freedom" Video

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Gay Thing: Here is Why Religious Objections to Gay Marriage are BUNK

Yes, The Gay Thing again. Sorry for being sort of a one-track-blog lately, but this topic just keeps bobbing up to the top. And the level of stupid amongst blogs, social media, Right Wing World and even from elected officials, is really starting to irritate me to the point of distraction.

I've struggled with writing a streamlined rebuttal to all of these "Religious Freedom Restoration Acts" that keep cropping up, and with the arguments behind them. Then I realized, there is a very simple reason why "marriage" isn't some special, sanctified, sacred, religious haven immune to ordinary laws. And here it is:


Attention RFRA Supporters: Not a church.

Civil marriage and "holy matrimony" have coexisted for decades, centuries even, and have not heretofore presented a religious conflict for wedding and formal event vendors.

That's it. That proves, a) that the perspective of the religiously sensitive cake baker or florist is anti-gay bigotry wrapped in religion, and b) that legal protection for their position is unnecessary.

Everyone knows that the Catholic Church, for example, has been free to ignore the validity of any couple's marriage that they don't deem to fit with their doctrine. Even congregants in good standing have been denied a "church wedding" within its walls. This is still true now, and will remain true unless the Vatican changes its mind on the subject, not whether or not the United States changes its civil laws. The same is true for any church or religion, as it pertains to what they consider valid in their religion.

Wedding reception hall (cakes, flowers, catering):
Also, not a church.

At the same time, many marriages have either no formal religious endorsement, or no religious component at all. There has been no recent prohibition against marriages by atheists, agnostics, interfaith couples, previously married couples, excommunicated Catholics or really, hardly any combination of unrelated, consenting adults. These marriages have co-existed with those considered to be religiously sanctified for time immemorial. These people have purchased cakes, flowers, catering, photography, tuxedos, dresses, hired reception halls, been listed on gift registries, been featured in newspapers, and managed to do it all without creating  religious crises for any of the vendors involved.

The fact that now--now that same-sex marriage is a reality, and soon probably a nation-wide one--suddenly "requires" special exemptions to laws, and protections for religious belief ought to be very telling to everyone what this is really all about: anti-gay bigotry. How can all of the above be true, and this simple fact not be obvious? These vendors managed to ignore any "sincerely held beliefs" about their clients' private lives and personal morality before. Why has that suddenly changed for this particular category of "sinner?" And how can it possibly be legally justified?

Well, it can only be justified if you ignore precedent, logic, reason and go merely for truthiness and "gut-feel," and if you have a tendency to feel squishy about religious teachings. Because even if we did have to bend over backwards for religious belief in any and all case law, Christians have thus far been unable to present which commandment or bit of doctrine forbids selling wares to "sinners" in the first place. But, now I'm off on a tangent. Here, read this excellent article that tends to back me up, won't you?

Image from source, Think Progress

[Excerpt]

Why The Christian Right May Never Recover From Indiana

Maurice Bessinger built his fortune serving barbecue. At the half-dozen locations of his Piggie Park restaurants, customers could enjoy meats slathered in the yellow, mustard-based sauce unique to South Carolina. That is, of course, unless they were black, for Bessinger was also a proud racist. As late as the twenty-first century, Piggie Park distributed tracts to its customers claiming that the Bible is a pro-slavery document — one of them claimed that African slaves “blessed the Lord for allowing them to be enslaved and sent to America.” After Congress banned whites-only restaurants in 1964, Bessinger reportedly put up an uncensored version of a sign warning that “[t]he law makes us serve n***ers, but any money we get from them goes to the Ku Klux Klan. . .”

Read more at: Think Progress

Matt Baume On "Religious Liberty"

Found at: Joe.My.God.

The Gay Thing: North Carolina Senate Passes Religious Exemption Law for Magistrates on Marriage

Crazy. Mean. Illogical. Desperate. Stupid. Unconstitutional.

All of those things--and more--apply to the law just passed by the North Carolina Senate, and those like it in various stages elsewhere across the country. It is a transparent attempt to discriminate legally, in legal matters that legislators simply don't like. It sets bad precedent, will--if fully enacted--create a plethora of unintended consequences for all citizens, and will stand as an embarrassment years down the line.

Let's start with the basics. More and more, high courts are finding that bans against same-sex couples civilly marrying are unconstitutional. A civil marriage need not and often does not have a religious component. Indeed, the "holy matrimony" part of a civil marriage is completely optional. Setting aside the fact that there are religions and religious denominations that do recognize same-sex marriage, religion--as it pertains to civil marriage--is irrelevant. Interfaith couples may legally marry, atheists and agnostics may legally marry. Beyond that, all manner of what many religious people consider "sinners" may legally marry, from 2nd and 3rd marriages, to open marriages, to convicted convicts marrying. I list these things not to compare them, merely to point out that magistrates (and other authorized state officials) have seldom expressed objection to granting these people marriage licenses.

Barronelle Stutzman, the florist who won't do
gay weddings. Because: Jesus. Image from Defund.com

Until now. For some reason that no religious fundamentalist has adequately explained to me, two things: a) homosexuality and b) abortion are the primary causes of concern for many conservative Christians. Jesus never mentioned either subject of course, and actual Biblical concern with them is quite scant compared to say, adultery, inhospitality and man's inhumanity to man. But for whatever reason, The Gay makes either #1 or #2 on these folks' list of religious concerns. Fine.

It's still irrelevant. Civil same-sex marriages are not being forced upon any church. They're not being performed in the name of these unaccepting churches' Gods. A minister, priest, rabbi, reverend or pastor is not required--unless he/she is working as an employee of a civil authority--to perform a same-sex marriage. Moreover, a civil marriage is a civil contract, and should be no more objectionable to a "magistrate" than should a building permit or business license. The religion of the magistrate, or that of the marriage participants is utterly beside the point. There is no religious test for civil office, and there is no religious test for civil marriage.

The case for "sincere religious belief" being an impediment to these people is rather thwarted by their silence lo these decades past, where surely each and every one has issued licenses to people who do not follow the magistrate's faith (and why on earth should they have to, anyway?). It is extremely telling, and plainly obvious what's going on here. It's bigotry wrapped in religion. Naked animus presented as "faith." The magistrate is not sanctifying, blessing or celebrating a "holy matrimony," they're registering a civil contract.

The couple who won't sell cake to gay people.
Again, Jesus. Image from Back to Stonewall.com

All of this "sincere belief exemption" stuff gets even more shaky when it comes down to wedding vendors. This group (traditionally stuffed with gay professionals, oddly enough) has seemingly and suddenly become a very sanctimonious, religiously delicate bunch. Though they rarely if ever point to what part of their religion commands that "though shalt not sell thine product or service to the gays," it has become their chief concern of late. They're willing to make a public case of it, get hit with fines and citations, potentially lose their business, and then tour the conservative speechifying circuit over the issue. Over someone else's celebration. Never before have I heard that a customer must follow a vendor's religious beliefs in order to be allowed to purchase their product or service. Never before was selling a cake, or flowers, or renting out tuxedoes considered participation in, endorsement of and celebration of an event.

The reason we never heard this storm before is because it's disingenuous. As I stated at the top, it's a desperate attempt to fight a lost cause by other means. It stinks to high heaven (heh) of animus and rancor. And it's so short sighted, it almost can't be believed. Because for all of the previous faux panic over "Sharia Law," many of these legislators and their supporters are quite happy stirring some religion into state, so long as it's their brand of religion. What they're not considering is that religious exemptions here will open the floodgates for a) Non-Christian religions small and large demanding exemptions to b) all kinds of laws and regulations.

Before you accuse me of presenting a slippery slope fallacy with that last bit, please tell me: what would limit this precedent to Christians? And what would limit it to wedding industry vendors?

[Excerpt]

NC Senate passes a lawless law on same-sex marriage

Despite North Carolina's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, marriages are proceeding because federal courts have ruled such bans in other states are unconstitutional. In a few months, the U.S. Supreme court will resolve the matter. But some North Carolina Republicans refuse to apply common sense and want to keep fighting for the ban in court. And now, thanks to a push from Phil Berger, the Eden Republican and president pro tem of the state Senate, more anti-gay marriage foolishness is afoot. . .

Read more at: NewsObserver

Seen at the "Values Voters Summit"

This was spotted at the oh-so-moral-and-Christian "Values Voters Summit." Why these extremists attract any mainstream Republican speakers and support is a mystery. If I were a career politician, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near them. But I can nearly guarantee you that nobody there will denounce this sort of thing, even though it was clearly created by a lunatic.

 



Found at: JoeMyGod

Washington State Politician Thinks "Religious Freedom" Means for Christianity Only

Wow, would he be easy to caricature!
Image from source, Raw Story

When the Supreme Court recently ruled that it was constitutional to open governmental meetings with prayers, I knew this was coming. I've done enough arguing online over the years to see it. When a lot of Christians argue for religious freedom, they really mean freedom for Christians.

[Excerpt]

Wash. state city councilman demands all prayers be directed to Christian God

A city councilman in Kennewick, Washington is demanding that council meetings open with a prayer to an explicitly Christian God, The Tri-City Herald reports. John Trumbo proposed that all city council meetings should begin with a prayer “directed in name and reference to the same God addressed in the Founding Fathers’ signatory documents that established this nation. . .”

Read more at: Raw Story

Lawrence O'Donnell Rewrites Kentucky's "Noah's Ark" Theme Park

Who knew there were cranes in Noah's day? Image from Inquisitr.

Oh, this is good. As an atheist, it's not often you get something this good from a religious person. And Lawrence O'Donnell is a good (though perhaps not devout) Catholic. Like me, he has a few problems with some of the Bible's wackier stories, notably the one about Noah's Ark.

The Noah story figured prominently in my slide into atheism. In my confirmation classes, it was clear that everyone around me took Genesis, up to that point, as literal truth. I was having enough trouble with that, but Noah's Ark? Plot holes you can drive an ocean liner through. It cannot be taken as a literal story, unless one is a child, one hasn't really thought about the story since he was a child, or with an economy-sized tub of faith spackle.

So anyway, they're building a theme park in Kentucky, based around the Noah story, complete with a "replica" of the ark. Kentucky is apparently going to give this entirely religious production millions of dollars worth of tax credits. To a heathen like me, this is very irritating. So, I was relieved to find Lawrence on my side. And his piece is also quite entertaining. Especially his pronunciation of "Ark Park."
 

The Rude Pundit on the Consequences of the Hobby Lobby Decision

Lee Papa, The Rude Pundit

There are lots of things that have bugged me about the Supreme Court and some of their decisions over the last few years. One of the biggest bones of contention for me, is that the court doesn't seem to plan for "unintended consequences." Or intended consequences. Or any consequences. They often either don't seem to have considered what the decision before them could lead to, or don't care.

Remember when Justice Samuel Alito shot back "Not true," when President Obama mentioned possible consequences of the Citizens United ruling, during the State of the Union Address? Turns out, Obama was right on the money. That tells me, Alito didn't ponder where CU could lead, or didn't believe it would happen. Later, when SCOTUS took a knife to the Voting Rights Act, they indicated that racism was over, and that the part they carved out was unnecessary. Minutes later, affected states began enacting previously prohibited voting restrictions. Wrong again, SCOTUS.

Now, we've got a) corporate personhood, b) corporations with religious beliefs, c) beliefs that are not contingent on reality or science, d) laws that can be disregarded by corporations with "sincerely held beliefs" that are in conflict with those laws, e) corporations having religious beliefs that trump the employees' religious beliefs, and f) untold future claims of possibly presently uninvented religions, with unknown beliefs. And of course, there is the underlying disrespect for women that seems to hang over anything politically conservative. It's a freakin' mess.

But I've gone on too long here. I don't have the talent of Lee Papa, The Rude Pundit, who has put pixels to screen on this subject, with far more zest than I can give it. So read on. I'll run a link to Part II when it goes live.

[Excerpt]

Yes, Everything Is Worse Than It Seems (Part 1: Hobby Lobby, Science, and You)

. . .Think about how that willful disbelief in science can apply. If Cargill, a closely-held corporation, says that its church doesn't believe that climate change is human-made, does that mean it can ignore pollution mandate? Can Chick-fil-A claim that its owners' religion says that homosexuality is a learned behavior, not genetic trait so, fuck you, queers, go home? Just think of all the laws you can toss out if you have a religious belief that is total bullshit, but sincerely held. Koch Industries was just told, "Go nuts, motherfuckers. Have blood orgies to your mad gods and sacrifice virgins to the oil demons, if that's what you believe." Walmart can finally make lard a sacrament. . .

Read more at: The Rude Pundit

Rachel Maddow: Previous SCOTUS Religion Cases Went Much Differently

A history lesson you should watch, so you can realize just how radical Monday's Hobby Lobby decision really was. If you don't have time for both videos, it's the second one that relates to the story below, the first is on the same subject.

[Excerpt]

Rachel Maddow: Christian segregationists would support Hobby Lobby ruling



Segregationists like Maurice Bessinger, who used religion to justify his beliefs, would be stunned and possibly pleased by Monday’s Supreme Court ruling regarding workers’ access to reproductive health measures, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said, “His belief in slavery and segregation as divinely ordained? That was certainly sincerely held,” Maddow said. “Certainly it was based in religion. But in his case, that was not enough to deprive people of their right to protections and rights that they were afforded under law. Now though, the court today said religion is all you need. . .”

Read more at: Raw Story

Supreme Court Inexplicably Decides For Hobby Lobby

I'm a gay man, if you didn't know, and as such have very little interest in the subject of abortion, or birth control. So, the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood case doesn't affect me directly. But as an atheist, I'm an ardent supporter of the separation of church and state (as all fans of the Constitution should be, by the way). And so, when SCOTUS does anything that bends over for religion, I've immediately got my hackles up.

Let's start with the direct problems with the case:

- It gives corporations "religious rights," furthering the fiction that corporations are people.
- It allows employers' religious beliefs to trump employees' religious beliefs.
- As such, the employer's beliefs are protected, while the employees' are disregarded.
- It allows an employers' beliefs about something (in this case that these particular birth control methods cause abortion, when in fact they don't) to be respected, regardless of how wrong it is.
- It magnifies something that was settled decades ago--birth control--into a "hot button" issue.
- Though it takes strained pains not to, it opens the door to countless other corporate religious exemptions to other laws.
- SCOTUS treats the religions of the companies involved in this case--mainstream Christianity--as a valid, acceptable religion to earn an exception to the ObamaCare law. But it dismisses other religions (Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Christian Scientists), and gives no clear reasoning as to what would qualify one over the other.

This is one of those cases that is bound to make one side happy, and the other unhappy. But it also goes further, by tarnishing the already dingy reputation of the court, by not having much in the way of legal reasoning at all. Hobby Lobby is not a person. It is not a church. It is not a doctor or in the medical profession. It is a craft store. And yet, they put themselves in the position of dictating their religious beliefs about a medical decision to their employees, regardless of the employee's beliefs, or lack of them.

I want to ask supporters of this decision some simple questions: do you honestly think that it will end here, with a "Christian" corporation, on the issue of birth control only? Did you consider that this law will eventually apply to other religions, from Mormons to Hindus to Islam? Did you consider that a corporation could devise a whole new religion, and make any sort of "sincerely held beliefs" to get out of other laws? This was Pandora's Box. It's open now.

[Excerpt]

Supreme Court exempts Hobby Lobby from Obamacare contraception mandate

 

Attempting to expand religious expression protections to small business owners without significantly disrupting the rules that govern for-profit corporations, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the Obama administration must exempt closely-held firms like Hobby Lobby from a rule requiring large companies to help pay for their employees' birth control. . .

Read more at: CBS News

SCOTUS Allows State-sponsored Religion. . .?

History, as some see it.

As an atheist, I have often been irritated by situations in which I basically have to go to church. I don't mean weddings, funerals, or being nice to my mother-in-law at Christmas. I mean non-church settings where there is prayer, or other invocations of God/Jesus. Mostly I roll with it (while doing a lot of eye-rolling). Occasionally, I'll grumble about it under my breath. I'm not offended by such displays, I'm just alternatively bored, embarrassed or just in an utter state of disbelief (pun intended). I just find them at best, silly. Silly like praying to The Great Gazoo.

But the silliness is worse when it is promoted by the government. Pretty clearly, the founding fathers intended a wall of separation between church and state. They did not want state sponsored religion. Still, mostly, I roll with it. Though I believe "In God We Trust," "God Bless America," and "One Nation, Under God" to be utterly pointless and meaningless, I also know that these things are drenched in tradition and emotion for a lot of people. I can endure it, even though I believe them to be unconstitutional when inserted on money, or in laws.

Others take this stuff more seriously, and literally make a federal case of it. And I kind of wish they wouldn't, at least as long as we have a conservative court. Because with the current SCOTUS, I knew they'd find a way to somehow twist logic to make overt Christian prayers led by elected officials to be okay, even though they're clearly not. Just like "God" on the money is somehow not religious (but also for some reason is demanded by the religious to be there), I knew they'd pull this. So, it would have been better just to leave it alone, rather than having it enshrined in law.

But, Christians, I wouldn't be partying too heartily. You are not the only religion. And one of these days, you might find yourself in a situation where you--like me--are bowing your head to the prayers of others. Muslims or Hindus or Scientologists or Satanists or Wiccans or Pastafarians. Just wait. Then, maybe you'll get a taste of what it feels like.

[Excerpt]

The Supreme Court Just Blew A Gaping Hole In The Wall Of Separation Between Church And State

Town of Greece v. Galloway is the case that proponents of the separation of church and state have feared every since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor left the Supreme Court in 2006. It strikes at the heart of the constitutional prohibition on government endorsement of religious doctrine or belief. And it brings religious conservatives within inches of a victory they have sought for more than two decades. For the sort of people who believe America should be a “Christian nation,” today is a today to celebrate. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

AZ Gov. Jan Brewer Dithers on Anti-gay "Religious Freedom" Law

Image from source, USA Today

I put "dithers" in the headline, because it's a very good description of what Jan Brewer is doing, and because conservatives love to use that word. Usually in a disparaging way, often when unwarranted. In this case, it's quite warranted.

[Excerpt]

Arizona governor takes time on anti-gay bill

Gov. Jan Brewer returned to Arizona on Tuesday, five days into an escalating controversy over a bill that would allow the use of religious beliefs as a basis for refusing service to gays and others. The Republican governor has not tipped her hand about what action she will take -- or when. . .

Read more at: USA Today

So, THAT Happened: Satanist Group Unveils Proposed Monument for Oklahoma Courthouse

This made me laugh myself silly. I've been saying for years, if you allow religion in your politics, you don't get to limit it to just one religion, you have to let them all in. And there are a lot of them, some--shall we say--less than mainstream. I'm sure that most of the supporters of the Ten Commandments monument are horrified by the design of this one. But I can't help myself, I find it hilarious. It was clearly designed for both reactions.

Image from source, Yahoo! News

Unintended consequences, people.

[Excerpt]

Group unveils Satan statue design for Oklahoma

A satanic group unveiled designs Monday for a 7-foot-tall statue of Satan it wants to put at the Oklahoma state Capitol, where a Ten Commandments monument was placed in 2012. . .

Read more at: Yahoo! News

Satanists to Build Monument Next to Oklahoma Ten Commandments?

Image from source, Wonkette

Unintended consequences. That's what "good Christians" tempt, every time they try to insert their religion into matters of state. If you allow The Ten Commandments or a crèche at the state courthouse, you have to allow similar things from other religions. They're not all "nice" religions, from the Christian perspective. But they should have thought of that, shouldn't they? And what constitutes a "religion," anyway? Couldn't just about anybody invent a religion, ordain themselves a priest, and--ahem--erect any kind of monument their religion might think of?

[Excerpt]

Satanists Generously Offer To Build Monument Next To Oklahoma Statehouse’s 10 Commandments Display

In a move that pretty much says “I’ll see your rhetorical question and raise you an ugly public monument,” a group calling itself the “Satanic Temple” has offered to display a big ol’ monument in honor of the Hornéd One, to be installed on the Statehouse grounds near the state’s display of the 10 Commandments. These are the dadaist religious trolls who made “God hate Fred Phelps’s mom last night back in July. Best of all, the epic trolling appears to be sanctioned under the 2009 law that erected the 10 Commandments at the statehouse. We hope the Pastafarians will be next, because noodles are yummy. . .

Read more at Wonkette

SCOTUS Case About "Religious Rights" of Corporations

Doesn't look like a church. Or a person.
Image from source, New York Times.

Sometimes a loony argument somehow wends its way all the way to the Supreme Court, and boy howdy is this one of them. SCOTUS is set to hear a case that asserts "religious beliefs" for corporations, more or less. This sounds preposterous of course, but when you consider that they previously called corporations people, it sounds like a logical conclusion.

So, okay. Even though corporations are clearly not people, let's presume for the sake of argument that they are. Do people have religious beliefs? Yes. Are they entitled to freedom of religion under the Constitution? Yes. They would also be entitled to freedom from religion--something the religious right has decided isn't true--which we'll get to in a minute. But typically, we think of these freedoms as personal and private. They're our own. Strangely, a new definition of "religious freedom" has taken root with the religious right, and they've pushed it all the way to the top.

What do I mean? Well, the case before the Supreme Court has to do with employers who provide health insurance. The Affordable Care Act requires that insurance plans provide contraception options. Hobby Lobby, an employer, is asserting that contraception is against their religion. Again, the corporation's religion. Now, Hobby Lobby is not a church. It's not a company that is an adjunct of the church, selling and doing business only between churches. It's a public business.

Next, consider the cases going through the courts having to do with public accommodations. Be they cake bakers, dress makers, reception halls, photographers, there is a whole category--apparently--of "oddly religious wedding planners." Several have refused to provide services to gay and lesbian couples seeking to get married (regardless of whether or not the ceremony is official or symbolic). These companies--when confronted with public accommodation laws--cry "religious freedom" too.

You'd think a corporation turning down money would
be nearly as unthinkable as a gay wedding!

While the latter point isn't directly tied to the former, they have a lot to do with each other. In both cases, you have companies claiming to have religious beliefs. And claiming that it is their religious freedom to dictate what their employers, or what their customers receive. Hobby Lobby isn't receiving contraception, or even providing it. They're providing insurance to people who may or may not get contraceptives partly covered by the insurance. But more importantly, the employee very likely does not share the employer's religion, and shouldn't have to! And a baker who has a problem with same-sex marriage hasn't got the right to insist that their customers adhere to the bakers' religion or else not get a cake.

I could veer off into several side-issues, like the fact that these oh-so-pious companies probably overlook a bevvy of other sins, and are oddly focusing on contraceptives and gays. But instead, I'll just say emphatically, your religious freedom ends with you. Unless you run a private, religious organization through and through, your religion does not extend to your employees and customers unless they want it to.

I'm nervous that this famously odd Supreme Court (which has veered from the horror of Citizens United and gutting the Voting Rights Act, to pleasing Marriage Equality decisions) might make another Pandora's Box decision. After all, if corporations can dodge all manners of laws and regulations just by crying "religious freedom," where will it end? And with whose religion? Are Satanism, Wicca, Scientology, and Pastafarians going to get in on the action?

[Excerpt]

Court Confronts Religious Rights of Corporations

Hobby Lobby, a chain of crafts stores, closes on Sundays, costing its owners millions but honoring their Christian faith.  The stores play religious music. Employees get free spiritual counseling. But they do not get free insurance coverage for some contraceptives, even though President Obama’s health care law requires it. . .

Read more at: New York Times

Ted Cruz's Dad Has a Few Scary Religious Theories About His Son

St. Rafael of A-Creepy. Image from source.

As an atheist, sometimes I forget how weird, how creepy, how scary to the American way of life religion can be when it gets out of control. It used to be kept pretty well under wraps by our politicians, who would toe up to the line, occasionally cross it, and then step back. Now, we've got crazy tea baggers tearin' up the joint, and tearing the Constitution asunder. Or at least, they'd really like to. Prepare to get a li'l freaked out.

[Excerpt]

Ted Cruz's Father Suggested His Son Is 'Anointed' to Bring About 'End Time Transfer of Wealth'
 
In a sermon last year at an Irving, Texas, megachurch that helped elect Ted Cruz to the United States Senate, Cruz' father Rafael Cruz indicated that his son was among the evangelical Christians who are anointed as "kings" to take control of all sectors of society, an agenda commonly referred to as the "Seven Mountains" mandate, and "bring the spoils of war to the priests", thus helping to bring about a prophesied "great transfer of wealth", from the "wicked" to righteous gentile believers. link to video of Rafael Cruz describing the "great transfer of wealth" and the role of anointed "kings" in various sectors of society, including government, who are to "bring the spoils of war to the priests". . .

Read more at: AlterNet

Church & State: Woman Forced by Court to Change Son's Name

"Where's your Messiah now?"

There are a lot of unusual baby names. There are a lot of dumb parents with names like Pigg, Ball or Cox who really ought to be more careful with names like Ima, Harry or Sharon. And I'm of the personal opinion that if you want to give your child an unusual name, use it as a nickname, and give him or her a legal name that is more standard. Example, if you want to name your kid "Cloud," maybe give him a legal name like "Chloe." If you want a boy called "Steeple," maybe call him "Steve" on his birth certificate? Gives him an out if he outgrows the nickname. Just a helpful hint.

But that's just it, it's a hint. A suggestion. I'd never demand or insist that a mother name her kid something. That would be. . .oh, I don't know. . .insane? And when the court does it, and uses religion as its reasoning? I'd say that's pretty clearly un-Constitutional.

[Excerpt]

Judge Declares Baby’s Name Unchristian; Orders Parents To Change It

Tennessee child support magistrate Lu Ann Ballew unilaterally decided to rename a seven-month-old boy “Martin” because she objected to the parents’ selection of “Messiah.” Her reasoning, she explained, was that, “The word Messiah is a title and it’s a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ. . .”

Read more at: ThinkProgress