Freedom from Religion Foundation sues Congress for forbidding a secular invocation

June 1, 2016 • 8:45 am

On May 5, the unconstitutional National Day of Prayer, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) filed suit against the U.S. Congress, the office of the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, and the entire United States of America, arguing that FFRF co-President Dan Barker had illegally been denied his right to offer a secular invocation to the House (guest prayers are often allowed). Part of their announcement:

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, who represents the Madison, Wis., district, sponsored Barker to deliver a guest invocation in February of 2015. The chaplain’s office informed Baker’s staff that it requires “guest chaplains” to be ordained and to submit an ordination certificate. Barker, who was a Christian minister for 19 years, retains a valid ordination, which he still uses to perform weddings.

Not only did Barker provide all the required documentation but he also submitted a draft of his remarks after being told he must address a “higher power.” Barker’s proposed remarks stated that there is no power higher than “We, the People of these United States.” Barker also invoked the spirit of founding patriot Thomas Paine, a non-Christian deist who promoted “Common Sense over dogma.”

Conroy [Patrick Conroy the official Chaplain of the House of Representatives], after delaying for months, officially rejected the request in January of 2016, noting in a letter to Pocan that Barker had “announced his atheism publicly” and therefore was not a true “minister of the gospel” eligible for the honor of appearing in front of Congress.

FFRF’s legal complaint documents that nearly 97 percent of House invocations over the past 15 years have been Christian, 2.7 percent have been Jewish and less than half a percent Muslim or Hindu. More than a third of the prayers were delivered by guest chaplains.

This is hilarious in a way, as Barker is indeed a minister of the gospel: he still carries his God Papers, and was deemed “not a true minister” because he’s now a nonbeliever.

This refusal is clearly uconstitutional, both in denying a secularist the right to offer an invocation, and in decreeing that an invocation has to be a prayer to a Higher Power. That privileges religion over nonbelief, a violation of the First Amendment.

Another technical violation of the First Amendment is the very office of the chaplaincy itself, which costs the American taxpayer about $800,000 a year for the House and Senate. In other words, if you’re a nonbelieving American, you’re subsidizing religious activities. You do it for the military, too, since they pay military chaplains, but they’re all religious. Humanist chaplains in the military don’t exist; as the Secular Coalition for America notes:

Currently, the armed services of the United States only allows chaplains who are granted an endorsement by an approved religious organization and who have received a graduate degree in theological or religious studies. This precludes atheists and non-religious from becoming chaplains. This does a tremendous disservice to the members of the armed services of this country.

If the courts followed the law, they’d have to allow not only secular chaplains in the military, but secular invocations (or, better yet, no invocations) in Congress. They can, after all, do without this stuff. The Constitutional Convention in 1787 managed to draw up our founding principles without any prayers, although Benjamin Franklin, then 81 years old, asked for them.

Here’s the FFRF’s lawsuit; click on the screenshot below to go to the pdf:

Screen Shot 2016-05-31 at 1.50.39 PM

 

Turkey jails two journalists for republishing Charlie Hebdo cartoon

April 29, 2016 • 2:36 pm

Under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey is becoming increasingly Islamist, increasingly oppressive, and increasingly regressive (are those all synonyms)? This once vibrant and largely secular country is now an oligarchy, and it’s forbidden to criticize both Islam and Erdogan. According to the Associated Press, there are nearly 2,000 court cases open in which people have been indicted for insulting the President. Some democracy!

The latest antic of this censorious government, however, is especially vile. Two journalists working for the opposition newspaper Cumhuriyet have each been sentence to two years in prison (actually three, but reduced to two on technical grounds) for illustrating their columns with a Charlie Hebdo cartoon. Here are the courageous writers, Hikmet Cetinkaya (left) and Ceyda Karan (R):

a8ea796fc01cd77fba019525f490115cc210fb2e

Here’s the familiar cartoon that accompanied their columns:

hebdo-cover-after-attack

Because of this cartoon, they were, as the AP reports, “acquitted of “insulting religious values” but convicted on charges of “inciting public hatred”.  Yet, as I’ve mentioned a few times before, this cartoon is by no means “Islamophobic”: it has varying interpretations—but one of them is not the demonization of Muslims.

One of the nastier aspects of this case is who brought it before the court (my emphasis):

The state-run Anatolia news agency said the case was brought by a total of 1,280 plaintiffs including Erdogan’s daughters Esra and Sumeyye, his son Bilal and his son-in-law, Energy Minister Berat Albayrak.

The Erdogan family was represented by a lawyer in court, it added.

After the verdict, members of the public who had brought the complaint and were present in court shouted “Allahu Akbar”, Cumhuriyet reported — Arabic for ‘God is greatest’.

If that’s not unseemly entanglement of the government with a supposedly free press, I don’t know what is.  Finally, the persecution of this opposition paper is continuing, with two journalists from the same venue on trial for much more serious charges:

Cumhuriyet, which staunchly opposes the Islamic-rooted government of Erdogan, has been regularly targeted by prosecutions as concerns grow over freedom of speech in Turkey.

Its editor-in-chief Can Dundar and Ankara bureau chief Erdem Gul are currently on trial on charges of revealing state secrets and could face multiple life sentences if found guilty.

And here they are:

aff2a8c06e69e47a6d0427e9d7b5b27ac30da849
ditor-in-chief of the Cumhuriyet daily Can Dundar (C) and Ankara bureau chief Erdem Gul (R) arrive at the Istanbul courthouse for their trial on April 22, 2016

I am so sad about what’s happening to Turkey. I’ve been there several times and always found the people friendly, hospitable, and secular. It was an open and fairly democratic place, with the Islam kept in its place: the mosque and the home. Now the whole country is going the way of Saudi Arabia, and I fear for my Turkish friends. If journalists can be sent to jail for three years for publishing a cartoon, all bets are off.

h/t: Char Adams

German fined for blaspheming Christianity via car slogans

February 26, 2016 • 2:30 pm

Come on, Europeans and Canadians—get rid of your stupid blaphemy laws! Yes, they’re almost never enforced, but they’re unworthy of an enlightened society. Among the “Western” countries who have them on the books are Denmark, Canada, Andorra, Cyprus, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine, not to mention Israel, South Africa, and New Zealand.

And, this week, they were enforced—in Germany. The Torygraph reports:

A retired teacher in Germany has been fined €500 (£400) for defaming Christianity under the country’s rarely enforced blasphemy laws.

Albert Voss, a former physics teacher and avowed atheist, was convicted of blasphemy after he daubed the rear window of his car with anti-Christian slogans.

The 66-year-old drove around his home city of Münster, in western Germany, with the slogans clearly displayed.

“The church is looking for modern advertising ideas. I can help,” one read.

“Jesus, our favorite artist: hanging for 2,000 years and he still hasn’t got cramp,” it went on to suggest, in an apparent reference to the crucifixion.

Another slogan was targetted at the Catholic church.

“Let’s make a piligrimage [sic] with Martin Luther to Rome!” it read. “Kill Pope Francis. The Reformation is cool.”

The court rejected Voss’s argument that his sentiments were protected by his right to free expression:

[T]he court ruled the slogans amounted to defamation of religion and had broken Germany’s blasphemy laws.

“You should have known that what you did is a criminal offence,” the judge told him. “The Pope and the cross are central elements of the Catholic faith. I do not consider this art. Freedom of expression is limited by the law.”

“I come from a Christian home, I was an altar boy,” Mr Voss told Bild newspaper. “later I realized faith rests on dubious foundations. What does not fit into the Christian worldview is ignored, even if it is in the Bible.”

Yes, I suppose freedom of expression is limited by German law, but it shouldn’t be. Even if prosecutions like this are rare, they still have a chilling effect on those who would publicly criticism Catholicism. I wonder if Voss would have been prosecuted had he omitted the “Kill Pope Francis” bit.

Das ist ja Wahnsinn!  Was ist los? Alle Deutschen müssen jetzt ihre Blasphemie-Gesetze ablehnen!

h/t: Coel

Chino Valley town council vows to continue prayer

February 19, 2016 • 10:45 am

Two days ago I reported that Mayor Chris Marley, mayor of Chino Valley, Arizona (and a “part-time Baptist minister”, whatever that is), has repeatedly begun the town council meetings with a Christian prayer. After promising that he’d stop the process pending a discussion of the prayer issue, Marley reneged on his promise (i.e. lied) and again praised Jesus at a meeting on February 9. A rabbi in attendance, Adele Plotkin, objected vociferously, whereupon Plotkin had her heaved out of the meeting (the link includes a video).

A little bird told me that both the ACLU and the Freedom from Religion Foundation have warned Mayor Marley that they have to stop this unconstitutional practice now. That was confirmed by the local paper. Do you think the council will listen?

Hell, no! It’s Arizona, Jake. As the Chino Valley Review notes, they’re standing firm:

Chino Valley has been ending its invocation with “praying in Jesus’ name” for years. The controversy began on Dec. 8 when a Chino Valley resident, Sherry Brown, objected to the practice.

Marley said he’s drawing a line in the sand and the rest of the Town Council backed him up, saying they have no intention to change their invocation.

After the Mayor chucked out Rabbi Plotkin, the council voted to stick with Jesus. The mayor said this (my emphasis):

“Unfortunately, the content of the invocations offered here in Chino Valley has become the subject of some contention, so we – your Town Council – will deal with it,” Marley said in an opening statement. “Our Bill of Rights protects us against the establishment of religion by the state, and yet it would appear that secular humanism with its mantra of political correctness has become just that, the state established religion which the First Amendment was supposed to protect us against.

Our oath of office requires that we defend the Constitution, and yet we are being asked to give up our right to freely worship according to the dictates of conscience. As a nation, we have already lost a number of our freedoms: The right to peacefully assemble and our protection against unreasonable search and seizure are already gone, and a number of others are being stripped away as we speak.

“I can’t speak for the rest of the Council, but I believe it is time to draw a line in the sand, at least for me it is.”

After discussing eight different options on how to handle the invocation at future Town Council meetings, the council voted that they would make no changes to the current tradition, which is a member of council gives the invocation without any guidance if they wish to be in the rotation to do so.

“I believe that we as a council have every right to continue to offer the invocations,” Marley said.

I’m always amazed how state imposition of religion, as the town council is doing, is justified as adhering to the First Amendment. The founding fathers, who voted against opening the Constitutional Convention with a prayer, would surely disagree. Note too that Mareley argues that by opposing public Christian prayer, his detractors are trying to make secular humanism the state established religion! It’s hard to avoid calling people names when I hear crazy arguments like that. That is, “no religion” is characterized as a religion!

And the “right to freely worship” means, chowderheads, anywhere but at governmental functions! Why can’t Preacher Marley restrict his prayers to his house or to his Baptist Church? For some reason, these people feel that their “right” to pray means a “right” to impose their religious beliefs on others in a formal government setting. Would he sit quietly if a Muslim offered up a prayer to Allah? Or if a Satanist proffered a prayer? I doubt it.

What will happen? The die is cast:

“I want the citizens to be aware, us standing our ground, if this is challenged, it could cost the town money to defend it,” Council member Corey Mendoza said. “Personally, I’m willing to do that. But we are representatives of the town, so speak up when you get a chance and we’ll unite around this.”

Yes, it will cost them considerable money if there’s a lawsuit, and if they don’t give in, I suspect there will be. Although such suits require someone with “standing” to initiate them, and there’s a certain peeved rabbi who, I think, does have that standing.

h/t: Dennis D.

Rabbi thrown out of Arizona city council meeting after objecting to Jesus prayer

February 17, 2016 • 12:00 pm

Religious hijinks are rife in Arizona, as the state repeatedly tries to flout the First Amendment by holding prayers before meetings of the state and city legislatures. The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) reports two recent instances (my emphasis):

First, the Phoenix City Council laudably opted for a moment of silence, as FFRF has advocated for years (after a not-so-laudable emergency measure to avoid an invocation by the Satanic Temple). Its meeting dragged on for hours, with scores of citizens commenting passionately on the issue.

Next, the Legislature prohibited any invocations that do not call on a higher power. Arizona state Rep. Juan Mendez delivered a historic atheist invocation to the Statehouse in 2013. (FFRF presented him our Emperor Has No Clothes award for this brave act of open secularism.) Mendez gave another secular invocation in 2014. But this year, he was banned from doing so because his opening remarks would not address a higher power. This clearly violates the U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Town of Greece v. Galloway) that allows government prayer but only if minority faiths and atheists are heard, too.

Could you invoke the Universe as a “higher power”? Or is that not a “power”?

Now there’s a third episode, called to my attention by sometime reader Ben Goren. As the Daily Kos and the Chino Valley Review report, this one involves a meeting of the Chino Valley (Arizona) Town Council on February 9. Many previous meetings of the Council had begun with prayers. Then, in view of objections, the local mayor, Chris Marley, announced that he would not say a prayer at that meeting, and confirmed twice thereafter that no prayers would be said at any meetings until the Council discussed the issue. (The prayers had always been Christian, invoking Jesus.)

Rabbi Adele Plotkin (notice, Catholics, that there are female rabbis!), who had protested the Christian prayers, planned to attend the February 9 meeting, and was under the impression from the Mayor that no prayers would be offered.

Well, Mayor Marley, apparently under the power of his Savior, changed his mind and offered up a Christian prayer. As the FFRF reports,

He initially read a “disclaimer,” claiming the prayer was only his personal belief. Rabbi Adele Plotkin started to complain. Marley warned she would be removed if she continued, so she stopped. After Marley ended his prayer in Jesus’ name, Plotkin stood up and loudly protested. Marley had a police officer remove the rabbi from the room. So much for free speech and petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

Indeed, and so much for a lying mayor (see below).

And, Ceiling Cat be praised, there’s a video of the whole incident, with the prayers, with the rabbi summarily ejected, and then a vigorous Pledge of Allegiance. See what we face in the U.S.? A bunch of religionists who refuse to abide by the law of the land. Have a look at this three-minute episode:

Marley sounds like Jack Nicholson, doesn’t he? I almost expected him to yell at Rabbi Plotkin, “You can’t handle Jesus!”

The upshot is reported by The Daily Courier:

The one change that Marley said he would make, [sic] is he would ask the Town Clerk to post a notice outside of council chambers notifying the public that an invocation would be part of the proceedings.

Plotkin said she’s not going to let the issue go.

“I had a near-death experience, and I went through the bargaining phase, and I made a deal with God, that anything He put on my plate, I would run with,” she said. “I’m running.”

All seven members of the council spoke in favor of keeping the current tradition.

“If they don’t like it, they can vote us out,” Marley said.

Fat chance that that will happen in Arizona! Notice the Mayor’s defiance of the law. But the FFRF is on this one, and they’re tenacious.

61317a
Mayor Chris Marley, lawbreaker

 

The “In God We Trust” police-car poll is now secular!

February 11, 2016 • 9:00 am

Yesterday I wrote about a sheriff in Virginia who had spent nearly $1500 of his personal money to outfit his unit’s police cars with “In God We Trust” decals. Sheriff J. D. “Danny” Diggs said this, among other things:

“I’ve been thinking about this for a long time.” Diggs said.  “It honors God.  God has been good to me and this agency.”

“Having ‘In God We Trust’ on our vehicles does not injure or threaten anyone. It is not an attempt to urge anyone to support or convert to any one religion. God has blessed me and the Sheriff’s Office. This is one way of honoring God by acknowledging Him for His blessings upon us and it shows our patriotism by displaying our national motto.”

. . . Diggs also stated Monday, “The legislatures and courts approve, and God is most certainly approving of this.”

But this gesture is clearly a violation of the First Amendment’s mandate for a separation between church and state.

WAVY.com also had a poll about whether readers supported the sheriff; the question was this:

“Do you support the Sheriff’s Office’s decision to place ‘In God We Truist’ on its patrol cars?” When I made the post at about 8 pm last night (UK time), these were the results:
Screen Shot 2016-02-10 at 7.51.29 PM

I added that I’d be disappointed if I woke up and found the “yes” votes still leading. Well, it’s now 11 a.m. in England, and here’s the latest tally:

Screen Shot 2016-02-11 at 11.02.09 AM

The tide has turned! I wonder why? Well, there’s still an opportunity to vote your conscience. Simply click on the link above, or on either screenshot, and scroll down to the poll. (You can vote only once).

I have about 38,300 subscribers, and surely all of them would want to vote one way or the other, if for no other reason than it’s a small gesture and because I don’t ask anyone for money or expose them to ads! All I ask is for you to vote your conscience. And I’m hoping that we’ll give a ringing endorsement to secularism. The faithful continue to vote, and we should too.

YES WE CAN!

Antonin Scalia tries to tear down that wall (the one between church and state)

January 4, 2016 • 12:30 pm
On Saturday, Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, conservative, Catholic, and “originalist” (one who thinks that law must ultimately rest on the original and unchangeable meaning conveyed by the authors of the US Constitution) gave a short speech at Archbishop Rummel High School, a Catholic school in Metairie, Louisiana. In that talk, as reported by two sources (the Associated Press and the New Orleans Times-Picayune), he basically reinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution. Instead of claiming that that amendment protects believers and nonbelievers alike, he claimed that it applied only to the faithful, not to atheists or agnostics.  That is a stunning reversal of precedent, and, if you know anything about history, a rejection of Scalia’s own originalism.
Here’s what he said (my emphasis):

He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is “no place” in the country’s constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.

“To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?” he said. “To be sure, you can’t favor one denomination over another but can’t favor religion over non-religion?”

and

The Constitution’s First Amendment protects the free practice of religion and forbids the government from playing favorites among the various sects, Scalia said, but that doesn’t mean the government can’t favor religion over nonreligion.

That was never the case historically, he said. It didn’t become the law of the land until the 60s, Scalia said, when he said activist judges attempted to resolve the question of government support of religion by imposing their own abstract rule rather than simply observing common practice.

If people want strict prohibition against government endorsement of religion, let them vote on it, he said. “Don’t cram it down the throats of an American people that has always honored God on the pretext that the Constitution requires it.”

That’s just wrong. Here’s the First Amendment, written by James Madison in 1789 and passed in 1791 (my emphasis):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Madison was at most a deist, and there’s no indication of religious belief in any of his writings. He was, however, a good friend of Thomas Jefferson, who was again at most a deist, but more probably an atheist/agnostic. And Jefferson’s own views on religion clearly influenced Madison’s.

Three years before the First Amendment was written by Madison, and five before it was passed, Jefferson’s own law, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, had been passed. (Jefferson actually wrote it in 1777 and introduced it to the Virginia legislature two years later). That statute, by the way, was one of three of his accomplishments that Jefferson wanted engraved on his tombstone. The other two are his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and his founding of the University of Virginia; his Presidency isn’t mentioned. What’s clear is that Madison’s First Amendment is based on Jefferson’s law.

It is clear in the Virginia Statute, as well as in Jefferson’s own writings, that he held nonbelief to be just as privileged as other beliefs. Here’s the conclusion of the Virginia Statute (my emphasis):

. . . .Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
Note the crucial phrases: “no man. . . shall suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief” and that “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of Religion.” What is nonbelief but “an opinion in the matter of religion”?
If Scalia were really an originalist who interpreted the Constitution according to the authors’ intent, he wouldn’t be saying that it’s okay to favor religion over non-religion. That would have appalled both Jefferson and Madison, and their documents don’t say anything about denigrating nonbelief.
Further, anyone who’s studied American history knows that Jefferson was a man without belief—a deist only if you stretch the term. But Scalia denies even that, jettisoning the palpable facts of history. As the Times-Picayune reports:

Scalia noted that Thomas Jefferson, who first invoked the idea of a “wall of separation between church and state,” also penned Virginia’s religious freedom law, founded a university with dedicated religious space and, in writing the Declaration of Independence, regularly invoked God.

Such deference for a higher power has been consistent ever since, Scalia said.

Has Scalia read the fricking Declaration of Independence? (The Constitution, by the way—the document to which Scalia says he adheres—does not mention God ONCE.) There are two mentions of goddy beings in the Declaration, the first being the rights that come from “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”, which is a dubious way to invoke a deity—indeed, it could be seen as pantheism. The other mention is this: men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . .”.   That’s a pretty watery statement, probably designed as a rhetorical flourish, and hardly shows Jefferson “regularly invoking God.” If you want to know what Jefferson believed and what Madison intended in the Constitution, look at their personal histories and statements of belief. You won’t find anything about a personal God, and their laws were clearly designed to protect nonbelievers as well as believers.

Oh, Scalia said more:

Citing a quotation attributed to former French President Charles de Gaulle, Scalia said “‘God takes care of little children, drunkards and the United States of America.'” Scalia then added, “I think that’s true. God has been very good to us. One of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor.”

That is a severe case of faith-based delusion. Why isn’t God so good to Muslims, who do him (in the form of Allah, peace be upon him) even more honor? And clearly God has been best to Scandinavia, where most people are atheists but societal well-being is far higher than in the U.S. Clearly, God loves those best who deny Him most.

Scalia should not be sitting on the Supreme Court. He’s not only addled by faith (remember his belief in Satan?), but he’s violating his own originalistic philosophy when it’s convenient for him to do so. That is judicial activism. Let’s hope that he’ll be off the bench within the next decade, giving Hillary Clinton an opportunity to replace him with someone sensible.

-335ff278a52421bb
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at Archbishop Rummel High School in Metairie on Saturday, January 2, 2016. (Photo by Brett Duke, Nola.com |The Times-Picayune)
h/t: Les, Randy