Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Many, if not most Christian Republicans don’t want the government and their tax money used to help the general public with things like health care and other social programs. They claim to want as little government interference as possible, but they hypocritically and constantly push for “faith based” programs which promote their own version of god delusions onto the general population. They have gotten their way with interjecting “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance long after it was written, and the placement of “in God We Trust” on our country’s currency. We are forced to swear in court on their mythology book, to say it when taking the oath for public office and when joining the military (unless we make a fuss about it, which can have negative outcomes when we do). In many places their Ten Commandments from their book of woo is on display in government buildings and even schools (until someone makes an issue of it). They want to force our children to pray along with them in public schools, even though they are free to pray to themselves any time they want without bothering anyone else. They feel the need to drag everyone forcefully into their “faith”.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU Press Mention) “It’s incredibly hypocritical that Sarah Palin, who disapproves of government involvement in just about anything, now suddenly wants the government to help people be religious,” Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told ABC News. “It is wildly inconsistent with her views on limited government to get the government involved in matters of faith.”"

If one really understands the foundations this country was built on, there should be no question as to if America is a Christian nation. But Sarah Palin and others who hold her fundamentalist sky daddy beliefs just don’t get it. On Friday, Sarah Palin said that it’s mind-boggling to suggest that America is not a Christian nation.

“Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our founding fathers, they were believers,” said Palin. “And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life.”

“In Washington’s farewell address, he wrote ‘Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion, faith, morality are indispensible supports,’” she continued. “So Women of Joy, remember that, and remember that even today this nation needs you.”

According to ABC News “two groups dedicated to the separation of church and state are now speaking out against her, arguing that she is misreading the founders’ intent.”

A spokesman for the Secular Coalition for America told ABC News that Palin is misconstruing the founders’ intent on matters of church and state.

“While the founders’ views on religion varied from person to person, there is no doubt that they believed strongly that religion had no place in government,” said Paul Fidalgo, the communications manager for the Secular Coalition for America. “John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli which stated in no uncertain terms that ‘the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.’

Palin told the women in attendance, whom she referred to as a “mom of faith movement,” that they should not listen to critics who would make them feel that their movement is “all a low-cost brand of ignorance.”

That’s exactly what it is, though. A “low-cost brand of ignorance”. She describes the fundamentalist religionist mindset perfectly. I call it “willful ignorance”.

Well, one judge in Wisconsin understands the concept of Separation of Church and State.

Judge rules National Day of Prayer unconstitutional

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional Thursday, saying the day amounts to a call for religious action.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote that the government can no more enact laws supporting a day of prayer than it can encourage citizens to fast during Ramadan, attend a synagogue or practice magic.

However, our President chooses to support the god botherers in the matter and is defending “Talking to Yourself Day”.

Obama will still issue National Day of Prayer proclamation

White House officials say President Barack Obama still will recognize a National Day of Prayer after a federal judge’s ruling the day is unconstitutional.

My Catholic and fundamentalist Christian friends in particular are in a tizzy, posting the rumor on their Facebook statuses anyway that their freedom to pray publicly is being taken away.

The rumor states:

President Obama has decided that there will no longer be a “National day of prayer” held in May. He doesn’t want to offend anybody. Where was his concern about offending Christians last January when he allowed the Muslims to hold a day of prayer on the capitol grounds. As a Christian American “I am offended.” if you agree copy and paste no matter what religion you are!

I point out that whether there is a proclaimed national day of magical incantation or not, they are still free to pray whenever and wherever they want and churches can get the required permits and all join together and talk to their imaginary friends just as atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, KKK members can all come together and form whatever day they want to have. But just don’t expect a secular government to recognize and proclaim a special day for you. I try to explain as politely as I can that when one religion is endorsed, then others will want equal time and it gets insane. Someone will always be left out. Church and State cannot be mixed and must be kept separate.

They just don’t get it. In a country that is 80 something percent Christian, they are still paranoid and thrive on feeling persecuted.

Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann join forces

Democrats and other opponents of the Republican party should be jumping for joy at the possibility of these two running in the 2012 election. I had to laugh at one comment at the end of the Salon article which said, “Why do all female Republican politicians look like realtors?”

“I knew that we’d be buddies when I met her when she said, ‘Drill here, drill now,’” Palin said. “And then I replied, ‘Drill baby drill,’ and then we both said, ‘You betcha!’”

Oh boy, golly gee!

It was an afternoon of barbed lines directed at President Obama and designed to rev up the party faithful. Introduced by Gov. Tim Pawlenty (who was all too happy to hitchhike on board the Palin/Bachmann Express), Bachmann went first. “I think I heard someone say repeal,” she said. “You better believe it, baby. Repeal is what this girl is going to be all about after November!” (Presumably, another re- word — “reelection” — will be keeping her busy until then.) “Two years from now, President Obama will be a one-term president,” Bachmann continued. “Because we are going to elect the boldest, strongest, most courageous, rock-ribbed constitutional conservative president this country’s ever seen! We’re there!”

We scoff at such a notion and don’t want to take this ditzy duo seriously, but after eight years of Dubya, never underestimate the stupidity of many conservative American voters.

I don’t have enough time to write a decent commentary on this, but thought it needed to be posted. You can read the article and discuss amongst yourselves.

Chancellor Falwell Is Trying To Turn Tax-Exempt Liberty University Into A Partisan Political Machine – And Dominate Lynchburg Elections. Will The IRS Step In?

Will the IRS step in? They damn well better!

We all know how fucked up the state of Utah is on many things:

Utah is not a state known for its legislative sanity. This, after all, is a state that recently made headlines for proposing to honor gun manufacturers on Martin Luther King Day and for considering the elimination of 12th grade to cut back on education spending.

Well, things just keep on getting worse:

In Utah, Miscarriage = Criminal Homicide

Utah just became the first state in the U.S. to criminalize miscarriage and punish women for having or seeking an illegal abortion. Utah’s “Criminal Miscarriage” law:

* expands the definition of illegal abortion to include miscarriages
* removes immunity protections for women who have or seek illegal abortions
* treats women as presumptive criminals and leaves them open to criminal prosecution

But even among states that punish illegal abortions, this “Criminal Miscarriage” law is unique. It not only punishes individuals who perform illegal procedures; it punishes women.

How Utah defined miscarriage as criminal homicide?

Utah’s “Criminal Miscarriage” law (H.B.12) makes simple changes to the state’s definition of “abortion” and the section of the Utah Criminal Code governing “criminal homicide.”

This law:

* defines legal abortion as a procedure “carried out by a physician or through a substance used under the direction of a physician.” Anything else that terminates a pregnancy is now defined as illegal abortion – including miscarriages.

* states that “The killing or attempted killing of a live unborn child in a manner that is not abortion shall be punished as…criminal homicide.” (emphasis mine)

* removes existing immunity from criminal prosecution for women “who seek to have or obtain an abortion” or “upon whom a partial birth abortion is performed.”

* applies the legal standard of an “intentional, knowing or reckless act of the woman” as punishable as criminal homicide.

Translation: If a woman has a miscarriage but didn’t know that she was pregnant, she cannot be charged with criminal homicide. So while this law does not criminalize all miscarriages, anything that could be defined as “knowing” or “reckless” would leave a woman at risk for criminal prosecution.

Could it really be that bad?

Yes, it could. . . It’s Utah!

Practically speaking however, this bill changes the presumption that abortions obtained in this state are legal. If this bill is signed into law, women in this state will essentially be in the uncomfortable and unfortunate position of having to prove that abortions they obtain (or miscarriages that they suffer) are not unlawful.

*snip*

A woman who fails to wear a seatbelt and is in a car accident could be charged with reckless homicide, should she miscarry. Likewise, a woman who has a substance abuse problem is likely to forego necessary prenatal care out of fear that she could be prosecuted for “knowing” or “reckless” homicide by continuing to use illegal substances while pregnant.

What can we do about it?

It’s time for everyone to hear about Utah’s “Criminal Miscarriage” law. The media must to cover it. We must to start conversations all across the country about what this means for women and girls in Utah – and what this precedent means if (or, more likely, when) other states follow suit. (A similar case in Iowa should be all the warning we need.)

So post this on Facebook. Tweet it. Forward it to five friends. And ask them all to do the same.

I had to re-read this a few times to make sure it wasn’t satire, but it’s for real.

The Virginia House of Delegates has just passed a bill that supporters hope will keep the Antichrist at bay.

You hear a loud whirring noise, you say? That would be Thomas Jefferson and James Madison spinning like tops in their Virginia graves.

Yes, it’s true. Yesterday House members approved a measure that would prohibit employers and insurance companies from requiring people to implant microchips in their bodies.

*snip*

. . . according to The Washington Post, there are some fundamentalist Christians out there whose analysis of end-times biblical prophecy leads them to believe that the Antichrist will appear soon and force everyone to accept the “mark of the Beast” in their persons. That “mark,” they think, could easily be the microchip.

The Post reports that Del. Mark L. Cole (R –Fredericksburg), the bill’s sponsor, has both privacy and religious concerns. He thinks the microchips could someday be used as the “mark of the beast” described in the Book of Revelation.

I was LMAO at this paragraph:

So let me get this straight: the Antichrist – the personification of Evil itself – is going to show up in America and start imposing the mark of Beast. He rolls through states such California, Kansas and Delaware, but when he gets to the Virginia line, he and his legions of demons just have to stop dead in their sulfurous tracks.

“Sorry, boys,” he’ll say. “Virginia’s got a law that says we can’t mess with the good folks there.”

While this sort of thing isn’t very important since it’s concerning something imaginary that is never going to happen anyway, it is taking time away from important REAL issues like unemployment, education and state budgets.

And as Joseph Conn states:

And most importantly, it does enormous harm when legislators get the idea that it’s perfectly okay for them to enact laws based on religion.

In a recent article at Huffington Post, American’s United for Separation of Church and State’s executive director Rev. Barry Lynn writes:

Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 4, President Barack Obama asserted that his administration has “turned the faith-based initiative around,” implying that his policies represent a sharp break from past practices.

That’s news to me. In fact, from where I’m sitting, the core of Obama’s faith-based initiative looks pretty much identical to the deeply problematic one created by President George W. Bush. A few tweaks on the margins don’t amount to real change.

One year after Obama announced his version of the faith-based office, civil rights and civil liberties groups such as mine are still fighting Bush-era battles over tax funding to religious groups that proselytize, job discrimination on religious grounds in public programs and lack of accountability. It’s disheartening.

I, like Barry Lynn, am growing impatient with Obama for “leaving the odious Bush faith-based scheme in place unchanged.” And I stand by Barry Lynn when he says:

Mr. President, this is not “change,” and I am losing “hope.” Please set your “faith-based” house in order. Shut down the Faith-based Council and issue executive orders and regulations clearly banning hiring bias and proselytizing by faith-based groups that take public funds.

Pursuant to a thread at Pharyngula, a particular book was mentioned. So Googling it up, I found this wonderful bit of folderol:

By now you’ve probably heard about that infamous movie so many people are talking about called EXPELLED, starring Ben Stein. No? OK, so if you haven’t seen it yet, you should. This film played for a limited engagement in theatres across the USA in 2008 (but don’t go rushing out to buy the video until you’ve visited the offers from our partners at the "Order Online" tab above). If you missed the movie (or just want to read up on what others are saying about it) you can check out another movie trailer here, and read some reviews and commentary about it here.

‘Limited engagement’ actually translates to ‘invitation only’ across a limited amount of showings, and I’m sure we’re all up on this non-issue that Stein tried to stoke a non-fire in the intellectual underbrush.

So why am I even mentioning this movie? Because the book Slaughter of the Dissidents (SOD) picks up where the movie "Expelled" leaves off. If you thought Expelled was mind-blowing, then this book will educate you even further about this important issue of repression of freedom and discrimination currently playing in academia today, along with many case studies of expelled scientists and educators (some of the SOD case studies also focus on some of the "Expelles" introduced in the movie).

I thought it was mind-blowing that Stein imagined he even had a controversy, let alone a point.

"Expelled" has taken many Americans by surprise. Suddenly, a growing number of people are wondering: what is this discrimination against Darwin skeptics all about? What do you mean we kick people out of academia just for asking questions about evolution! Is this really true? And just how bad is it really.

Like all empty incendiary rhetoric, it’s really not all that bad. Nobody’s been ‘slaughtered’, either physically or metaphorically. It’s simply scare-mongering, is what it is.

Well, in a word, the treatment of Darwin skeptics in our culture (scientists, educators, and students) is very poor. Many of them endure incredible humilation and eventual loss of their jobs. But even worse, being a Darwin skeptic for many of these people is a complete career-ender. Of course, there are many who try to argue against such claims, as you can see by visiting sites like "Expelled Exposed." We plan to provide some rebuttals to those arguments at some point in the future. But for now… SOD will serve as a starting point.

You won’t believe some of the reasons many educators have lost their jobs, and how they often get blackballed from academia, or why some students failed to get an otherwise earned degree. This pernicious form of discrimination is not only widespread in the U.S. but is also nauseating to most Americans. SOD goes into great detail about how and why it occurs, and provides you with scores of actual case studies. As you read this book you’ll discover that one of the most precious things we own is at risk, right here in America. What is that?

In a word,

FREEDOM

The price you pay for going against the scientific consensus (and especially on a topic that has been proven up and down and sideways to Muskogee) is…well, ridicule is something you’ll have to endure, especially when you don the martyr’s cap and cry ‘poor me!’ when you propound twaddle.

Freedom to disagree about some aspects of evolution without losing your job or being denied an earned degree. Freedom to tell people you dare to question any aspect of evolution on scientific grounds – without referencing any religious text.

Either the author doesn’t understand the definition of ‘aspect’, which is:

1. appearance to the eye or mind; look: the physical aspect of the country, 2. nature; quality; character: the superficial aspect of the situation, 3. a way in which a thing may be viewed or regarded; interpretation; view: both aspects of a decision. 4. part; feature; phase: That is the aspect of the problem that interests me most. 5. facial expression; countenance: He wore an aspect of gloom. Hers was an aspect of happy optimism. 6. bearing; air; mien: warlike in aspect. (6 will do for now), or he’s being deliberately misleading about the ‘any aspect’ phrasing. Either one wouldn’t be a surprise.

And also the freedom to let others know what you personally believe outside of science without having such an utterance turn into a rabid witch hunt.

That’s utter nonsense, otherwise notables such as Ken Miller and Francis Collins would be pilloried in accordance with this ‘logic’.

Do you know it has reached the point in America where, on this subject at least, if you are an educator and you opine that you have reservations about any aspect of evolution based on scientific evidence, you are often immediately labeled as "religious" (whether you really are or not), and you are (often) immediately determined to be ‘unfit’ to teach science or get a science degree?

Unmitigated crap. Maybe a biology degree, but this ‘any aspect’ accusation is ridiculous.

And speaking of religion, it looks like we live in an era where freedom OF religion has been twisted to mean freedom FROM religion. Some groups supporting this type of discrimination proclaim that "Freedom depends on free thinkers," unless, of course, you happen to be ‘religious’.

I don’t think I need to go any further with this. Of course, you can’t have freedom OF religion unless you have freedom FROM religion. This isn’t ‘discrimination’ – this is fact. It’s an equal playing field now – and this is the standard argument from martyrdom, except that we are all now familiar with the lies the Christians tell us, the lies they believe and will fight for, against all odds and evidence.

In addition, I might add that this execratory bit of work has an introduction by none other than “Dr.” D. James Kennedy. For those of you unfamiliar with this particular fuckwit, he was that same idiot who made the repugnant ‘documentary’ titled Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, which has been debunked and repudiated (but is still for sale!). Also, a hardcore theonomist.

One can only hope that this disorder we term religion will wilt away, that the human race can move onwards to greener pastures.

Till the next post, then.