Welcome to H&C,,, where I aggregate news of interest. Primary topics include abuse with "the church", LGBTQI+ issues, cults - including anti-vaxxers, and the Dominionist and Theocratic movements. Also of concern is the anti-science movement with interest in those that promote garbage like homeopathy, chiropractic and the like. I am an atheist and anti-theist who believes religious mythos must be die and a strong supporter of SOCAS.
But…he
takes care of homeless people. And he’s a Family Man. And he is a
Pastor. And he found a way to put his life together — and then some —
after 16 years of struggle. And…
He is one of the most dangerous people walking on the face of the earth today.
He’s due to go to trial near the beginning of 2016. Guess who’s representing him?
The case, filed in 2012, is expected to go to trial early next year in a U.S. district court in Massachusetts….
Lively
is represented by Liberty Counsel, a Christian law firm that also
represents Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who was recently jailed for her
refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
That’s right. Liberty Counsel — the hate group currently supporting Kim Davis.
And
when it comes to Kim Davis herself, according to the Religion News
Service, Lively complimented her “courage and commitment.”
Right.
You know what takes “courage and commitment”? People who have to be in
hiding from the laws Lively allegedly helped pass who, nevertheless, go on national television and speak against them.
This is the first ATS case seeking accountability for persecution on the
basis of sexual orientation and gender identity as a crime against
humanity. The United States Supreme Court has affirmed the use of the
ATS as a remedy for serious violations of international law that are
widely accepted and clearly defined. Persecution is defined in
international law as the "intentional and severe deprivation of
fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the
identity of the group or collectivity." Lively – a U.S.-based attorney,
author, and self-described world-leading expert on the “gay movement” –
has traveled to Uganda and other countries, including Russia, and played
a key role in the effort to strip LGBTI people of fundamental rights,
including the rights to free expression, association, and assembly.
I am sure with Liberty Counsel now at the helm of his defense, we will be hearing about how Lively is such a martyr for the Christian cause.
A lawsuit by Sexual Minorities Uganda, an LGBT advocacy group,
alleges that Lively conspired with Ugandan religious and political
leaders since 2002 to strip gays of their rights in that country that
has resulted in housing and employment discrimination, arrest, torture
and the murder of gays and lesbians. The case, filed in 2012, is
expected to go to trial early next year in a U.S. district court in
Massachusetts. If convicted, Lively could face a fine.
“He’s very clear that you have to silence LGBT people and eradicate
them politically,” said Pam Spees, an attorney with the Center for
Constitutional Rights, a New York-based nonprofit that is representing
the Ugandan advocacy group in the case.
,,,
Sexual Minorities Uganda and the Center for Constitutional Rights
contend that Lively’s presentations in workshops in 2009 and 2012
influenced a 2013 Uganda law, which initially called for life in prison
for people who engage in same-sex relations.Later the law was revised to also punish individuals or groups that support gays.After
international outrage, the constitutional court in Uganda overturned
the law in August 2014 on a technicality, but lawmakers have said they
will revive the bill.
Critics say another proposed law, which seeks to restrict nonprofits
from operating in Uganda, could also be used to outlaw groups working
with LGBT people.
“The situation there is very fraught and perilous,” Spees said.
“There are so many violations happening in Uganda, and people are
suffering. This case is part of a larger effort to keep it from getting
worse.”
Today I am going to open with words from the incomparable George Takei:
"Well this is a bit of a circus. So let us be clear: This woman is no hero to be celebrated. She broke her oath to uphold the Constitution and defied a court order so she could deny government services to couples who are legally entitled to be married. She is entitled to hold her religious beliefs, but not to impose those beliefs on others. If she had denied marriage certificates to an interracial couple, would people cheer her? Would presidential candidates flock to her side? In our society, we obey civil laws, not religious ones. To suggest otherwise is, simply put, entirely un-American."
As a public official, it isn’t even clear Ms. Davis has the same rights as a private citizen to speak out let alone act in opposition to same-sex marriage as part of her official duties. As the conservative majority of the Supreme Court noted in the case of Garcetti v. Cebalos back in 2006, “[W]hen public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.” In other words, Ms. Davis, as an officer of the county, is subject to the Establishment Clause limitations, and precisely because she is a government employee, does not have the right to claim First Amendment protection either for her speech or for her actions based on her faith.
My original plan, I wasn't going to touch the Kim Davis affair in any great detail. I mean seriously how much more can one small time blogger add to the conversation. And in all honesty Mr. Sulu summed up the whole debacle in his statement alone.
Simply put, she broke the law and the law won, there is no other way to look at it. You can argue semantics all you want [natural law v the Constitution, State vs Federal, discrimination vs religious accommodation, etc] but,,,
And. let me just say as a brief side note as to how ridiculous this is becoming,
One self appointed political know it all has tried to compare the whole religious liberty facade, specifically Davis, to imprisoned missionary Saeed Abedini. Where he goes wrong in this analogy,,, Iran is a Islamic theocracy where there is no SOCAS. [Abedini allegedly broke the laws of the country he was visiting. While I sympathize with his family and supporters and find the "charges" against him bogus, there is no comparison to the religious freedoms and freedom of speech we enjoy here in the US compared to an Islamic run country.]
Another, has gone so far as to say Davis is the Rosa Parks of our era,,,Uhm, NO!!
The one small point I will make concerning an issue of semantics, is a statement Davis herself made:
To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.
Now, this is just "lying for Jesus," because it isn't so. Davis regularly issues marriage licenses in conflict with her so-called definition of Biblical marriage. She is not averse to allowing divorced couples to marry at all.
As much as I hate to admit it, it is one point the WBC has right (although the primary focus of their ire is Davis), the typical fundamentalist view is that once married always married. By Kim's own logic, every license she signs for a divorced local couple is a violation of "God's definition of marriage."
[Besides the fact that the definition of marriage has already change both from a biblical standpoint and from a societal one as well.]
That aside, a recent discussion surrounding the whole faux Christian persecution complex has highlighted one point that has not really been discussed. Special Pleading or Religious Exceptionalism and if you have followed my blog it is a point that I have highlighted numerous times before starting with none of than Hobby Lobby and it's aftermath.
Before we begin, I will not be arguing whether Davis is a "true" Christian, or whether her "religious convictions" are hypocritical in light of her divorces and marriages. Nor will I touch on whether what she spouts is actually what she believes; in other words is she seeing $$ signs or is she getting piss poor legal advice. What is at issue, plain and simple:
The First Amendment does not give Kim Davis the power to decide whether same sex marriages are lawful in the State of Kentucky. That question was settled this summer by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-to-4 that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the freedom to marry in all 50 states.
Davis’s private, personal beliefs are covered by the First Amendment. But when she steps into her official role, she is no longer a private citizen—she is now an agent of the government. And the same First Amendment that protects her private freedom of religion bars the government from having any official religious beliefs.
,,,but the agenda of the Religious Right is the right to opt out of ANY federal or state law(s) they do not like because of actual or alleged violation of THEIR religious principles.
Now granted Lynne was speaking in regards to for-profit businesses such as HL,,,
BUT...
Six months later, after the final ruling by SCOTUS, the Reich was fucking pissing their pants we glee. According RWW, Matt Barber,
,,,is hopeful that anti-gay Christians will now have a solid defense when they refuse to "be an indentured servant" by providing services to "a counterfeit gay marriage" because this ruling was "a strong rebuke of all those sexual orientation laws around the country in cities and municipalities and states that say somehow gays win, Christians lose, sexual orientation trumps all."
It was a sentiment echoed by many within the Reich. As their devilish minds worked an unexpected win to their advantage in advancing their agenda. [Keep on mind I personally believe the Reich never expected to win. That HL was itself a "test case" and nothing to do with contraceptives at all.]
When one looks at the decision rendered by SCOTUS it has to be through the lens of the Reich's overall agenda - starting with a "reformed" interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause or an outright repeal of the First Amendment, continuing with the abolition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ending with the implementation of dominionist ideology in order to govern by theocratic control. [And this is the crux of the whole HL case] With the ruling in Hobby Lobby, the Reich will "now" be able to exempt themselves from any laws that they don’t like; that they find “religiously objectionable.”
Now bear in mind that was "just the highlights" to set the tone, so to speak. There is too much minutiae regarding the politics and I'd prolly bore y'all to death.
So on to this notion of Special Pleading or Religious err,,, Christian Exceptionalism, I mean accommodation for religious belief and why it would be a bad judicial precedent...
When you have time listen to this clip from The Young Turks, it is a perfect demonstration of what I mean:
This is my current working definition, how I look at it,,,
Invoking your personal interpretation of the religious dogma, that your particular religious group teaches, onto other individuals in order to outright deny a service or product. (Not taking into consideration possible accommodations that could be made.) Then when the denial of service (discrimination) is called into question based on applicable law, said religious beliefs are invoked as a defense under a twisted interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
A few things to keep in mind: 1] the courts generally do not rule on whether said a religious beliefs is genuine. 2] The Kim Davis Affair IMO is pretty straight forward, as Davis is an agent of the gov't. 3] By accommodation, I mean simple items - such as not having to work on accepted holy days IF prior notification is given. [An example would be applying for a position that requires work attendance on a day normally reserved for worship.]
According to the US Constitution, religious freedom does not equate to religious entitlement. While the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion and forbids religious favoritism, which is why Davis’s actions are particularly egregious.
As Judge Bunning himself stated, “The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed.”
There is no such thing as "natural law" in a secular society, at least not in the manner the Reich is insisting. [That's a whole 'nother ball of wax to contend with.] To Davis et al, it means only one thing - God's law. Or more apt, my interpretation of God's law. Or quite succinctly, SHARIA!!
As you can see this mess is about more than just about Kim Davis. There is so much other stuff mixed into the bag of goods being sold to the public by the Reich, it would take the patience of Job to sort it all out. Besides the above, the Natural Law discussion as I mentioned. There is the piss poor analogy to Dred Scott and for shits and giggles we have Rena Lindevaldsen, who works for the Liberty Counsel, who has taken to arguing that Christians have the right to overthrow the democratically elected government and simply impose their will by fiat. What she is suggesting is the Sovereign Citizen motif.
Davis is a pawn of her own legal team blinded by the idea that religious conservatives are entitled to ignore — or even overthrow — democracy and seize power just because they feel like it.
Several parents in the district filed a lawsuit in November through the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
The board decided to fight the lawsuit, maintaining that members have
the right to pray and enlisting a conservative values law firm to combat
what they called secular bullying.
That case is ongoing and in discovery. Andrew Seidel, the lawyer for
Freedom From Religion, said there won’t be a jury trial and his group
will be pushing for a judge to grant summary judgment.
On the prayer issue, hundreds of community members signed a petition
supporting school board prayer and showed up at board meetings in a show
of support for Cruz and Na. But this time, Cruz’s rant has alienated
some of his supporters, too.
The Denver City Council delayed the
routine approval of a contract for Chick-fil-A to operate one of its
restaurants at the city’s airport after a “gay” council member charged
corporate profits would be used “to fund and fuel discrimination.”
The attack on one of the most successful and most popular food
franchises in the nation is just the latest since 2012, when CEO Dan
Cathy expressed his view that marriage is the union of a man and a
woman.
At one point, Chicago Mayor
Rahm Emanuel threatened to refuse to allow the company to open any
restaurants in Chicago. He later dispatched an aide to say he really
wouldn’t do that.
Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver at the time said such a move
would be unconstitutional anyway. But he said the reaction to Cathy’s
support of the historic definition of marriage proved homosexual
activists are militantly intolerant and want to intimidate and silence
critics rather than engage in debate.
The Denver Post reported
that the routine contract with Chick-fil-A was pending before the
council when Councilman Paul Lopez called it “really, truly a moral
issue on the city.”
The company repeatedly has assured the government it follows nondiscrimination laws and regulations.
Mayor Hatch told me the council will meet next month to decide what
course of action to take. Meanwhile, the citizens of Knoxville are
launching a campaign to save the memorial.
“This political correctness stuff is getting way out of
hand,” resident Doug Goff told me. “When we are bending to the will of
one person in the town -- you know something is wrong there.”
Goff is a lifelong resident of Knoxville. He’s also a Navy veteran. And he’s helping to spearhead an August 30t rally to defend the cross.
“This is a memorial for our veterans,” he said --
wondering if Americans United has a problem with the crosses in
Arlington National Cemetery.
“The cross is white because the headstones in Arlington are white,” he said. “Would you take that cross down, too?”
,,, Meanwhile, I think Americans United should answer Mr. Goff’s question.
Will they demand that Arlington Cemetery remove their crosses?
Less than a month after Fremont County School District RE-2 settled a
lawsuit with a former teacher over religious discrimination at Florence
High School, students and church leaders were back in front of the
school Friday morning for prayers at the flag pole.
,,,
Community members, along with the pastor of The Cowboy Church at Crossroads, were also there.
"It's short, 20, 30 seconds and then they go in and then we wait for another group to come," said pastor Randy Pfaff.
,,,
The lawsuit was settled in July, and part of the provisions ban the
school district from endorsing or sponsoring religious groups or
activities, and the Cowboy Church can no longer hold worship services at
district facilities.
According to the settlement, students can
still gather to pray and form religious organizations, but they must be
student led. Now the group, Fellowship of Christian Huskies, will have
to make that transition.
"The students of course still have a
club going but everything they try to do has been diminished and they
don't have a leader any more to really lead in that way and Christianity
does not need to be out of our schools," said Candy Thompson, one of
Pfaff's supporters in the community.
in the Kim Davis affair. Like the Kleins - who are being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom - it is all being orchestrated by piss poor legal advice from Liberty Counsel.
Constantly jockeying for position and prominence with the similarly
missioned Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Liberty Counsel is
technically a non-profit organization providing pro bono legal
representation for “religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the
family.” Liberty and ADF seek out opportunities to represent
conservative Christians in potentially high-profile religious liberties
cases. This accomplishes two necessary tasks: keeping their
organizations in the news, and for Liberty Counsel, it ensures yearly
donations and grants exceeding $4 million will continue to flow in.
Both organizations are guilty of promoting markedly flawed accounts
of "persecuted" Christians who are most often simply people who
discriminate and break the law using their beliefs to validate the
wrongdoing. The entire charade garners the attention, sympathy, and
financial support of conservative segments of the population who rarely
dig into the details and seem so easily manipulated by a narrative in
alignment with their fears.
Staver's counsel to Davis has simply been bad advice; there was no way
her religious beliefs about the exclusivity of marriage as between a man
and a woman would absolve her of the duties of her elected office. But,
even bad advice successfully keeps religious liberties in news and
subsequently, the cash coming in.
,,,
The federal court ruling was not enough to stop or satisfy Liberty
Counsel from pressing the issue further. Staver filed an appeal to the
6th Circuit Court on Friday asking for "asylum for her (Davis')
conscience." The Supreme Court waited until late Monday to deny her
request.
It is something I have been saying for months in regards to, not just Liberty Counsel, but Alliance Defending Freedom and Pacific Justice Institute. All these "religious liberty" cases are cash cows, but they hiding a very dangerous agenda, "While participants hail from
various denominations, they all commit to using their legal careers to 'reorder society' according to a 'christendomic' worldview, in which
there is no separation between church and state." It became blatantly obvious with the formation of the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, as well as the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
It would be easy to write a story mocking the application’s
histrionics and thinly veiled animus. But quite frankly, I’m growing a
bit concerned about Davis’ lawyers. Davis is being represented by the
Liberty Counsel, a far-right fringe group that specializes in anti-gay
litigation. (Naturally,
it is also a Christian ministry and a tax-exempt nonprofit.) Founder
and Chairman Mathew D. Staver has used Davis’ case to raise money and
boost publicity for his group, going so far as to hold a rally for Davis,,,
Law firms regularly use sexy cases to increase their own profiles,
and it’s perfectly fine to bandy about your client to further a
constitutional cause. (Gay rights litigators do it all the time.) But
Staver is taking things too far. The first sign of trouble arose early
in the case: When a federal judge ordered Davis to issue licenses or be
held in contempt of court, the Liberty Counsel advised her to disobey the ruling.
Good lawyers don’t usually tell their clients to defy lawful court
orders, especially when jail time is a real possibility. Yet the Liberty
Counsel didn’t mind putting their client at risk—perhaps because the
idea of a middle-aged woman being hauled off to jail for purportedly
following her conscience would send thousands of anti-gay Americans
reaching for their pitchforks (and checkbooks).
Although I don't think we have quite reached the point of #9, if one reads Franklin Grahams (cited above), that is exactly what he is trying to foment.
“I’m thankful and proud that Americans are standing up against the evil being forced on us. Our religious rights and freedoms are being trampled on,,,. We need more Americans who are willing to take a stand for religious freedoms and biblical values in our communities. If we don’t, we won’t even recognize the America that our children and our grandchildren will be left with. Pray for Kim Davis and for our nation today.”
First, evil is not being forced upon Kim
Davis. It is her religious belief that same sex marriage is wrong, and
she’s entitled to that belief. No one is forcing her to divorce her 4th
husband and marry a woman– that would be an obvious violation of her
religious liberty. But doing her job as a clerk of the court? This has
nothing to do with religious liberty.
,,,
This
particular case however, isn’t about Ms. Davis being free to practice
her religion and it isn’t about having the freedom to conform into the
image and likeness of Christ. Instead, this is about Ms. Davis’s
attempt to force her religious restrictions on the general public and
an attempt to conform the secular government into the image and likeness
of Christ (or her version thereof).
And
this is why she and Franklin are wrong, even if their theology were
somehow proven to be right. Nowhere in the New Testament does it tell us
we are to take control of government and shape it to look like Jesus.
Jesus never advocates taking political power, or using the power of
government to build the Kingdom of God. Never.
,,,
Ms. Davis has essentially
hijacked a portion of the government and is now using that arm of
government– not in an attempt to live out her religious convictions– but
to force those convictions on other people. If a person from any other
religious tradition were to do this, Franklin Graham would be pitching a
fit. [My emphasis]
Let the information in this first paragraph sink in for a moment,
In Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis, who has been married four times, has been under fire for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs. Two different couples have sued her, but in addition to seeking a dismissal of those cases, she filed a suit of her own this week against Gov. Steve Beshear (D), claiming that he violated her rights by instructing her to do her job.
Do I need to spell it out, or is the blatant hypocrisy obvious, "who has been married four times, has been under fire for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs."
A federal court ruled this afternoon that Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis must issue same-sex marriage licenses. The Lexington Herald Leaderreports:
A federal judge ordered Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis on
Wednesday to resume issuing marriage licenses despite her religious
objection to same-sex marriage. U.S. District Judge David Bunning
granted a preliminary injunction against Davis that was requested by
Rowan County couples who want marriage licenses. Davis has refused to
issue marriage licenses in her county since the U.S. Supreme Court
legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in June. Davis is bound by her
duties as a public servant to obey the law, Bunning wrote. “She is even
free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman,
as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse
her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan
County clerk,” Bunning wrote.
Restricting the free speech of a Baptist minister is a violation of
the federal and state constitutions, Liberty Counsel attorney Richard
Mast Jr. wrote to Hayter. As he counseled young offenders, some of whom
had been sexually abused or were sexual abusers themselves, Wells would
tell them what the Bible said about homosexuality, Mast wrote.
"It
is not 'hatred' or 'bias' to lovingly point out the harms of
homosexuality, and the power of Christ to change lives, should the
occasion require it," Mast wrote.
Yet there is nothing unconstitutional about the policy because the prison is government run. They can dictate what volunteers and employees can and cannot do. This is not a religious test, they are not barring Wells from volunteering, but if he wants to volunteer, he must abide by policies put in place to keep these youth safe. Calling them names does not keep them safe is not a religious right.
What Wells wishes to say inside his own church is his business, but he is not allowed to walk into a government facility and say whatever he pleases if he wishes to be a volunteer.
Wells was traveling Monday and
could not be reached for comment. Pastor J. Dale Massengale of Pleasant
View Baptist Church, in Breckinridge County, said Wells leads his
church's ministry at the detention center, where they counsel children
as young as 8 and 9 years old. The church has been active at the
detention center for 13 years without any previous complaints,
Massengale said.
,,,By reaching out to homosexual youth who are struggling through life
and already in the prison system and then to call them abnormal,
deviant, etcetera is only going to hurt the well-being of the juveniles
in the state’s care.
This is once again, a religious plea to be allowed to oppress, discriminate against and shame those they do not agree with,,,
Many youths in custody are sexually confused and
need to be educated about "unnatural affection or, as it's cataloged in
the Scripture, sodomy," Massengale said.
"We're dealing with
juveniles who have been prostituted since they were infants because
their mothers needed money for drugs, or who have been sodomized all
their lives. They feel like this is the only life they've ever known,"
Massengale said. "Under this policy, we can't even go in there and read
the Bible to them to give them a message of hope."
As one comments notes, "Volunteers should be banned from religious proselytizing to minors/prisoners unless it's some sort of Sunday-service and the youths go voluntarily."
As the article notes, and something Ham et al ignore,
"There are no other state agencies with a policy on this issue
because DJJ is the only agency with facilities that house youth, and
therefore it really is unique to us," Flooden said. "There are other
states that have similar policy."
Although individuals ordinarily
have the right to free speech, including religious expression, that's
not always true if they work at a state or federal institution and might
be seen as speaking with the government's voice.
Speaking up in defense of Wells, Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver
complained, “Many juveniles are in DJJ custody because of sexual crimes.
Pastor Wells must be able to discuss what the Bible says about matters
of sexuality with the juveniles he is trying to help. To remove the
Bible from a pastor’s hands is like removing a scalpel from a surgeon’s
hands. Without it, they cannot provide healing.”
The letter went on to state: “The Bible explicitly prohibits any
expression of sexuality outside of the confines of man-woman marriage.
It recognizes that every person, regardless of personal proclivities or
attractions, is separated from God because of sin, whatever form that
sin may take. Many juveniles are in DJJ custody because of sexual
crimes, and Mr. Wells must be able to discuss the Bible and matters of
sexuality with inmates, and he therefore was unable to sign the form.”
Let the pastor consider how he would feel if a non-Christian counselor
were to tell all the young offenders who are Christian that Jesus was a
fraud because that's what he believes. His right to speak as he wishes
to would be that person's right to speak according to his desires.
Staver has to be one of he dumbest, if not the dumbest lawyer in the country:
He also addressed claims that the arguments in favor of the same-sex marriage bans are similar to the ones made defending bans on interracial marriage, which were also said to be based on moral, biblical teachings and not discriminatory in nature. Staver dubiously suggested that while homosexuality “has always been, up until recently been, described through millennia of human history as a crime against nature,” racial bias is not rooted in history.
“There is nothing historically or throughout our long history of Judeo-Christianity that says that someone who’s got dark skin can’t marry someone who’s got white skin or lighter color skin. That’s never been rooted in our history, that’s never been rooted in natural law, that’s never been rooted in millennia of human history,” Staver said. “Marriage is objectively, to use a philosophical term, ontologically, the union of a man and a woman. If you can’t get that right, good grief, how can you be a judge on any court?”
Excuse me? Uhm,,,Mat, are you a graduate of Beck U or somethin'? Your history is all wrong!
Have you not read Loving v Virginia? The same argument - never been rooted in our history - was made in favor of "racial" bans going back to the days when the states were still controlled by the British. Such was exemplified by Justice Warren's opinion:
At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Loving,,,. He [referring to trial judge Leon M. Bazile] stated in an opinion that:
Almighty God created the races white,
black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.
And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no
cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows
that he did not intend for the races to mix.
[,,,]
Virginia is now one of 16 States which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications. Penalties for miscegenation arose as an incident to slavery, and have been common in Virginia since the colonial period.
[,,,]
In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate
purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and
to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and
"the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the
doctrine of White Supremacy.
[,,,]
The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its
equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection
Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance
on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus
become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat
interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this
question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in
doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the
state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial
marriages.
Interracial marriage was banned for centuries in this country, rooted in our history.
In 1989, attorney Matthew Staver and his wife, Anita, founded Liberty Counsel, a legal organization aimed at “advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family.” But a primary focus of the organization over the years has been preventing and attacking the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people around the world. In fact, Liberty Counsel and its leaders have compared LGBT equality advocates to terrorists, said the country’s evolution toward embracing LGBT people will cause God to destroy America, and even advocates for draconian laws around the world that make it a crime to be LGBT.
Staver now serves as dean of the law school at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, and Liberty Counsel has opened an office on the university’s campus. The organization continues to raise millions of dollars each year, even though it has taken part or carried out a laundry list of shocking and deplorable acts against the rights of LGBT people. Here are 10 things you should know about Liberty Counsel,,,
A federal appeals court decision upholding New Jersey’s ban on conversion therapy for LGBT youth has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The anti-gay legal group Liberty Counsel on Wednesday asked the court to review a September ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which upheld the New Jersey law prohibiting therapists from performing the controversial “gay to straight” conversion therapy on LGBT youth.
The lawsuit, filed by two therapists, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and the American Association of Christian Counselors, argued the law violates their right to free speech because counselors are barred from talking about conversion therapy.
Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver said that while the 3rd Circuit upheld the ban, “its discussion of the law created a circuit split on the issue of the appropriate level of scrutiny applied to regulations of professional speech and also on the issue of whether counseling in this area constitutes speech at all.”
So besides the "Christian persecution" complex, Matt here seems to think that breaking the law is a good thing. Glad he's not my lawyer,,,
As federal courts legalized same-sex marriage in several new states this week, Matt Barber unsurprisingly railed against the trend in an appearance on “The Janet Mefferd Show” yesterday. Barber insisted that judges shouldn’t be making decisions regarding state marriage laws, before adding that even state legislatures don’t “have the right” to pass marriage equality laws.
“This doesn’t even belong in the courts,” he told Mefferd. “Marriage is what marriage is, you can no more redefine marriage than you can suspend the laws of gravity. They can say they’re going to do it but it doesn’t alter reality, so the fact is this matter doesn’t belong in the courts. States don’t even have the right to redefine marriage, it’s like saying I want to redefine purple.”
“Gay marriage and religious freedom cannot coexist in harmony,” Barber predicted. “We are going to see more and more anti-Christian persecution and discrimination at levels we could not have imagined. People are starting to see that this is really about attacking Christians and Christianity more so than it’s about this euphemistic ‘marriage equality’ nonsense that they’re throwing out there.”
The Internal Revenue Service has instituted a protocol for investigating tax-exempt churches and religious organizations involved in political activity, according to a Wisconsin-based group representing atheists and agnostics that filed a federal lawsuit over the issue.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation and the IRS submitted a motion in federal court on Thursday asking the judge to dismiss the case filed in 2012. The FFRF announced the settlement on Friday.
"This is a victory, and we're pleased with this development in which the IRS has proved to our satisfaction that it now has in place a protocol to enforce its own anti-electioneering provisions," said the group's co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor.
An IRS spokesman for Wisconsin said he was not familiar with the case and had no immediate comment.
Although Annie Laurie sounds optimistic, I have a feeling this will not be the last we hear of this issue and as Hemant Mehta points out:
"It couldn’t have come at a better time. The Christian Right group Liberty Counsel announced this week that it would be distributing 150,000 DVDs to pastors across the country encouraging them to “address biblical and moral issues” from the pulpit — which is evangelical code for “tell your congregations which way to vote” since the only thing pastors ever do is address biblical and moral issues from the pulpit.
"(Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver added that if they didn’t send the DVDs, then Hitler would win: “We saw how the spiral of silence had devastating results in Nazi Germany. We need to stop the spiral of silence in America.”)
“Pastors and churches must be empowered to confront the assaults on our culture, our faith, and our freedom,” says Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “German Political Scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann coined the expression ‘spiral of silence.’ Noelle-Neumann began her career working for a newspaper during Hitler’s years, where she found that people conceal their views when they think they are in the minority or may face reprisal for their beliefs. We saw how the spiral of silence had devastating results in Nazi Germany. We need to stop the spiral of silence in America,” Staver said.
A group of residents in Bulloch County, Georgia is petitioning their local school board to protect the religious rights of its teachers.
Bulloch County Citizens for Religious Liberties, led by Pastor Jon Cook, recently requested that the county Board of Education review its religious expression guidelines after emails were distributed throughout the county instructing teachers to cleanse their classroom of Christianity.
“As of today, if you have a Bible verse on your school email and/or Bible verse posted in the classroom, please remove it immediately,” a message received by Cook’s wife, Jill, a teacher at Sallie Zetterower Elementary School, read. “If a student-led prayer is initiated, you must remove yourself and step away from the group.”
Please note: I am not responding to the actions of the Bulloch County School District. What I am responding to is the article and the comments left on the article highlighted here. The School District has (had) been taking a pro-active stance in this debacle, created by Bulloch County Citizens for Religious Liberties led by Pastor Jon Cook.
What I have found a bit disconcerting is the author's combining of 2 independent incidents into one tirade:
1] A complaint forwarded by Americans United concerning prayer on school grounds and participation by school employees. What the article does not point out, the complaint filed by AU was from April (2013). In veiled and inculpative language, the author insinuates the following:
A complaint received by Americans United for Separation of Church and State reportedlysparked the memo, as the group contacted the district earlier this year to take issue with school prayer, including alleged teacher participation.
2] The district wide e-mail, referenced above, sent to educators concerning religious expression in classrooms.
And you may as well add the faux Christmas card "headache" created by Todd Starnes of Fox News as he also threw in his biased opinion concerning the district e-mail.
The problem with Starnes report concerning the cards, there were no cards posted at the time and there was a privacy issue as well; not a religious one as implied:
When boys and girls returned from Thanksgiving break, they discovered that their teachers’ Christmas cards had been removed – under orders from the Georgia school’s administration.
Robb Kicklighter’s wife is a third grade teacher at the school. He said many teachers are disgruntled by the school’s decision to confiscate the Christmas cards.
“They took down the cards so the kids can’t see them,” he told me. “Some of the cards had the word ‘Christmas’ and some had Nativity scenes.”
As you know, the Board of Education and I continue to give our full attention to the question of how each of us is able to express our beliefs in our official duties,,,
[,,,]
Initially, I can tell you the following: (1) you do not have to step away or turn your back on student-led prayer. Simply be mindful of your position so as not to appear that you are leading it; (2) you are free to pray to yourself at school and even gather with your peers of like faith to pray when students are not present; (3) you may wear non-obtrusive religious jewelry; and (4) our students are free to learn about different faiths, cultures and holiday traditions in the context of the lessons our teachers prepare. However, because we have been given the responsibility to educate children and with that task comes inherent authority, we do have to limit religious symbols, scripture and phrases on email signatures and in our work spaces unless they are be ing used to teach a cultural lesson or advance some educational purpose. We must always respect student expression of religious views, but we must be neutral with regard to our individual expressions in the presence of students.
What is blatantly obvious, the District's Administrators do not appear to be appreciative of the involvement of the Liberty Institute and one Jeremiah Dys.
As legal counsel for the Bulloch County Board of Education, I have been asked to respond to your letter dated December 5, 2013, contending that the Board of Education is infringing upon the religious rights of its teachers.
At the outset, let me state that is has never been the intent, much less the desire of the Board and its employees to discriminate in any fashion against any employee's exercise of his or her religious beliefs. That being said, as an Institute with "significant experience regarding First Amendment issues in public schools," you must be aware that such rights are not limitless.
That aside, on to these uneducated comments,,,
"It's fascism [sic] plain and simple,,,"
In order for it to be "fascism" one would have to involve government. Simply defined it is a political ideology with rigidly enforced conservative values and behavior norms. Maybe the word you are looking for is oppressive, intolerant, or dictatorial. But I believe the word this commenter is looking for is "bully." To borrow from George Orwell and his 1944 essay "What is Fascism?"
Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
No one is being bullied here. No one is infringing upon the private religious rights of the teachers. What is being addressed is the perceived support or enhancement of one religion over another as a teacher's "religious speech" may be taken as representing the school/school district (eg. Bishop v. Aronov, 1991).
"All this happened because an outsider group reared its ugly head,,,"
The only "outsider group" attempting to get involved is Liberty Counsel who sent an unsolicited e-mail to the Superintendent, Charles Wilson, "I write on behalf of concerned citizens to outline the constitutional requirements regarding these issues,,," My assumption the "concerned citizens" is Pastor Jon Cook's group Bulloch County Citizens for Religious Liberties
What is sickening concerning Liberty Counsel initial e-mail, the reliance on the erroneous Todd Starnes report as source. Like Starnes, Liberty Counsel acted upon incorrect information without doing their due diligence. This should come as no surprise as both Mat Staver (Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel) and Matt Barber (Chairman of Liberty Counsel Action, an arm of Liberty Counsel) have been frequent guests on Fox News.
I understand the following facts to be true. Citizens of Bulloch County have contacted Liberty Counsel, directing our attention to an article stating that Christmas cards were removed by the District so students wouldn't see them [1],,,
It is a foundational principle of American jurisprudence that teacher speech is protected by the First Amendment. See Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969) (“It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.”) ,,,
In my opinion, what Dys fails to address in regards to Tinker, this ruling is concerned with the First Amendment rights of student NOT teachers. It also does not address religious expression. (I only highlight this case due to the fact that Dys takes the ruling so far out of context):
a] All throughout the Tinker opinion, it was student led expression of opinion that was addressed not teacher
b] ",,,[T]he Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in schools."
c] In Tinker, the students were engaging in "a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners' interference, actual or nascent, with the schools' work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students.
d] "In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint."
That something in this current incident, is the appearance of endorsing one particular religious belief over another.
Ponder me this my dear readers, Mr. Aplesayed has a poster in his room proclaiming, "Allah is the one true God." Or Miss Wicawich, has a book on her desk entitled "Angelic Zodiac Sigils" and signs her emails "Be one with nature, let Gaia enjoin with you on your path." How well do you think that would be embraced by these same petitioners? Would Mr. Dys and the Liberty Counsel be clamoring to be involved? I doubt it as it doesn't advance their agenda. You can't have it both ways!
Although a teacher does not give up all of his or her rights to free exercise of religion as a condition of employment, Courts have repeatedly emphasized that the rights of teachers in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings. (eg. Roberts v. Madigan, 1990)
In Roberts v. Madigan it was ruled that a fifth-grade teacher was required to remove certain texts from his classroom library and to refrain from silently reading the Bible during an in-class reading time. Teachers in the eyes of a student(s) are "clothed with the mantle of one who imparts knowledge and wisdom" (referring to Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 1994); they are not ordinary citizens. Any type of religious endorsement during school time or on school grounds, can be seen as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
So in essence, teachers do leave their rights "at the door" just not all of them.
The teachers will win. They are protected under the constitution,,,
Similar sentiment as above but citing the Constitution also brings one caveat. As contracted employees of the school district they are bound by the dictates put forth by their employers who are bound by the Constitution. Justice Brennan, writing the opinion of the SCOTUS in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 582-83 (1987):
In this case, the Court must determine whether the Establishment Clause was violated in the special context of the public elementary and secondary school system. States and local school boards are generally afforded considerable discretion in operating public schools.
'At the same time . . . we have necessarily recognized that the discretion of the States and
local school boards in matters of education must be exercised in a manner that comports with the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment.'
The Court has been particularly vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools. Families entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family.
So the BOE was correct when stating:
,,,with regards to all electronic communications between an employee and a student or parent, the employee is representing the District in his or her professional capacity. Given the District ownership of the e-mail account and the policies of the District, it would be difficult to assert that e-mails from employees with religious messages do not constitute an endorsement of religion or at least entangle the District in the subject.
The Constitution wins!
You are seriously confused on what the law of the land is. Have you ever read the first amendment?
Schools teachers and administrators are by proxy government employees. They are therefore not only protected by the 1st Amendment, they are also bound by. The rights of a minority (non-Christian believers) cannot be impinged upon by the rights of a majority. In others words "mob rule" does not fit. Just because the "community" believes it has the right to violate the Constitution does not make it the "law of the land."
“Brooklet Elementary School’s (BES) holiday traditions and especially those of Christmas are alive and well,” said BES Principal Marlin Baker. Bulloch County Schools and BES’s administrators have not, nor do they plan to remove any student’s learning experiences about Christmas or any other seasonal holiday. Students across the district returned Monday from Thanksgiving break, and already student’s holiday artwork is going up on bulletin boards, walls and doorways.
For those that are aware of my other online pursuits, I spoke about this on Monday,,,
,,,discrimination against people of faith,,,They still have the prayer breakfasts don't they? No churches have been bolted and locked shut. No Christians have been burned at the stake or beaten within an inch of their lives,,,WTF!!
,,,(strong word) Pagan world view,,,I was unaware that Pagans had a world view other than peace, love and understanding
*,,,the Paganism of old was anti-Christian,,,Might it have something to do with the fact that a madman was in power in Alexandria, allowing for the killing of Pagans (and Jews as well) [think Hypatia]
*Caesar,,,Pagan,,,Progressive,,,Pagan sexual morality,,,HUH??
*,,,a Pagan view of the world that is a secularist view ,,,that is inherently hostile,,,I say again HUH?? Does dude even know what being Pagan means?? Sounds like he is attempting to make himself look smarter than he is and is just throwing buzz words out for the thrill of it
Barber is attempting to demonize Paganism, creating the THEM of an "Us vs Them" thought process. We are right, all others are wrong in their beliefs, therefore they need to be removed. They have a flaw, they aren't human,,,and so on.
I don't understand how individuals such as Barber and Crampton can sleep at night. Not because of the religious rhetoric that flows from their mouths, but the constant fear that they must live with on a day to day basis. Their dreams must be filled with endless torment and suffering, wondering if they meet up to the expectations of their god. How many nights do they lay awake fearing sleep because they might not wake up?? God punishing them for some minor indiscretion.
"We are going to find ourselves," Crampton warned, "in grave danger. And so our being embarrassed by a cross on a pitcher's mound is shameful and you can bet that the Creator of Heaven and Earth is not turning a blind eye to what is going on in America today."
I highly doubt god is worried about a man-made, idolized symbol on a pitchers mound in some ballpark on planet earth. He should be more worried about the hunger and starvation, the hatred and vitriol his so-called followers seem to care nothing about.
