What’s More Christian Than a 30 Foot Cross?

By Sean McGilvray

The 9^th Circuit recently denied a rehearing for the case in which they ruled that the giant cross that sits on federally owned land atop Mount Soledad in La Jolla, California is unconstitutional. In January of this year, the 9^th Circuit took the entirely reasonable position that when the federally-maintained Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial tops itself with a 25 foot tall representation of the most fundamental symbol of Christianity, they are sending a message of wholesale endorsement of the Christian faith in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The Mount Soledad Cross has a long history of controversy, but the latest round of litigation kicked off after the state of California got sick of arguing about it and transferred the land on which the monument stands to the federal government in 2006. The ruling in January spelled it out:

“… after examining the entirety of the Mount Soledad Memorial in context—having considered its history, its religious and non-religious uses, its sectarian and secular features, the history of war memorials and the dominance of the Cross—we conclude that the Memorial, presently configured and as a whole, primarily conveys a message of government endorsement of religion that violates the Establishment Clause.”

Last month, the court declined to review or reverse their earlier decision, which places this case in a prime position to move further up the chain and appear before the U.S. Supreme Court. Not all of the Circuit Judges agreed with the decision however, and Judge Carlos Bea wrote a lengthy dissent attacking the earlier decision and disingenuously suggests that a giant cross has nothing to do with Christianity.

Bea attacks the reliance on the three part test used in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under that test, government action has to meet the following three criteria to avoid violating the Establishment Clause:

1. It  must have a secular legislative purpose.
2. It  must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion.
3. It  must not result in an excessive government entanglement with religion.

Despite the always colorful potshots that conservative justices like Scalia have taken over the years at this standard (“like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence” 508 U.S. 384, 397 (1992)) the Lemon Test is good law.

Under this standard, the government action of acquiring a hunk of land with a giant cinderblock cross and maintaining the monument as-is seems like a cut and dry example of advancing the Christian religion and getting excessively entangled with it. Judge Bea pushes for an application of an exception to the Lemon Test from Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005). In certain borderline cases where the religious iconography in question is part of a larger secular context, the court has to engage in a fact-intensive assessment of a host of factors, including the monument’s purpose, the perception of that purpose by viewers, and the monument’s history. The standard came from the Texas Ten Commandments sculpture case.

Although the Court in Van Orden explicitly eschewed the notion of simple formula in favor of an intensive fact-based analysis, Judge Bea helpfully condenses this analysis to look at the use and context of the Mount Soledad Cross.

Of course the earlier 9^th Circuit decision considered all these factors in addition to their Lemon Test analysis and found that the Soledad Cross was inherently Christian in nature. Judge Bea argues that the fact that Cross is currently part of a veteran’s memorial and is festooned with plaques and American flags somehow negates the religious undertones as though crosses are not associated with memorials precisely because of the religious connotations of the afterlife.

Bea also argues that the history and context of the cross are secular, or at least as secular as a representation of the deity worshipped by the majority of Americans can be. By focusing narrowly on Mount Soledad Cross only as part of a memorial for the veterans since 2006 (when the U.S. government acquired the property) Judge Bea willfully ignores the broader history of the Cross which was a focus for annual Easter services for over forty years. He is a big fan of history when it comes to pointing out that the monument stood unchallenged until 1989 and that this long run without opposition somehow drains the cross of its Christian meaning.

It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will grant cert for this case and if they do, whether the current lineup will be inclined to see the case the same way as Judge Bea but for now this particular victory in the war to keep church and state on opposite ends of the block has been reaffirmed.

The First Amendment is for Christians Only

Oh Flori-duh, you never fail to amuse.

Clay County Pastor, Ron Baker of Russell Baptist Church in Green Cover Springs, FL holds weekly prayer sessions near the Clay Hill Elementary school’s flagpole. To make sure that everyone knows about it, the school principal, LArry Davis put out a newsletter supporting the prayer meetings. (source) That’s a no-brainer violation of the First Amendment.

But principal Davis has a way around that. In his newsletter announcing the meetings, he wrote:

“Pastor Steven Andrew states: ‘Our children need God back in schools,’ and he is calling Christians nationwide to bring back the Holy Bible and Christian prayer to schools … The First Amendment was for Christianity, not other religions.” (source)

Davis told the Florida Times-Union that, despite the passage in his newsletter, he doesn’t feel that the First Amendment only applies to Christians. Seems like an ineffective backpedal to me. Read the passage for yourself.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to the school superintendent informing him of the fact that Davis’ conduct violates the First Amendment. The Superintendent said that Davis went too far, and asked Pastor Baker to stop holding the prayer meetings at the elementary school.

Like any good christian, Baker refused. “I think if I were to stop, it somehow sends the message that I think it must be wrong,” he said. Because whether it is insisting that the Earth is the center of the universe, or that there is an almighty space being who gets mad if two guys cocks touch each other, if there is one thing that christianity teaches us, it is “never, ever, ever, ever admit you are wrong, no matter how fucking retarded your views are proven to be.”

Can Connecticut take porn from its prisoners? Should it?

Many concerns come to mind when someone thinks about spending time in prison.  First and foremost, there is always the risk of being shanked with a very, very sharp toothbrush.  For the financial criminals, there is the distinct shame of being bested by Bernie Madoff in a game of badminton.  This is to say nothing for the fable of being made someone’s bitch. But what about a lack of porn?

Connecticut’s prisons were very tolerant of pornography in its prisons until recently. (source.)  Now that the Connecticut prisons are pulling the plug on this entertainment, the inmates are threatening to sue.  This is not isolated to the Northeast, either, as a Michigan man filed suit over a guard’s refusal to provide him with pornography, claiming the guard’s action violated his constitutional rights. (source.)

Not to put too dull of an edge on it, but prisons can basically do what they please to inmates. Correctional facilities have staked out the lowest standard of review available under law.  Prisons can enact policies that run counter to prisoners’ First Amendment rights as long as the regulations are rationally related to a legitimate penological interest, a standard that has consistently led to judicial affirmation of anti-pornography policies in the big house. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413 (1989); Smith v. Dept. of Corrections, 219 Or. App. 192, 198, 182 P.3d 250 (2008).  In contrast, the next-lowest standard of review – and generally the lowest for non-prisoners – is rational basis review, where a government action must be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest to be constitutional (and intended as such – no post hoc analysis is allowed).

Courts review a prison’s limitation on the inmates’ First Amendment rights by using the three-prong reasonableness test enunciated in Thornburgh:

1. whether the governmental objective underlying the regulations at issue is legitimate and neutral, and whether the regulations are rationally related to that objective;
2. whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates at de minimis cost to penological interests; and
3. the impact that accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on others (guards and inmates) in the prison

490 U.S. at 414-18 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 85 (1987)); Owen v. Wille, 117 F.3d 1235, 1237 (11th Cir. 1997).

As seem in prong 3, rehabilitation interests of prisoners are not all that may be, or is, considered when evaluating these policies.  Courts have found that preventing the harassment of employees who work in the prison is a valid justification for a limitation on sexually explicit materials among inmates. See, e.g., Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1059 (9th Cir. 1999).

The reach of these policies has been broad. In Washington v. Werholtz, 2008 WL 4998689 (Kan. App. 2008), the Kansas appellate court upheld a policy that banned all sexually explicit material, which included any display, actual or simulated, or description of a variety of acts, including intercourse and masturbation.  While such a policy will cover Larry Flynt’s oeuvre, it will also ban trashy romance novels and some important works of fiction, such as L’ Histoire d’ O.

As long ago as 1989, Iowa grappled with this issue, which made its way into the New York Times.  Under Iowa’s policy, only inmates who had been psychologically screened and approved to view the material – with prisoners whom prison psychologists believed would be obsessed with the material being denied access to it. (source.)  The policy drew a bizarre distinction between how various forms of pornography were treated; inmates who could view porn were allowed to keep “soft-core” content in their cells, while hardcore content was only viewable in a well-supervised reading room.  One then-inmate complained that the reading room was impossible to enjoy under this policy, as the guards filed through the area as if it were a freeway – denying him any privacy in which to evaluate the materials.

In 2006, Indiana instituted a similar policy.  The Indiana Commissioner of the Department of Corrections previously explained that state’s pornography prohibition as something in the interest of both inmates and facility employees.  The Commissioner’s explanation appeals to stay at home moms everywhere, exempting medical and anthropological instances of nudity, but adopts an “I know it when I see it” definition of pornography. (source.)  Ultimately, Indiana’s restrictions amount to subjective, content-based limitations determined by what individuals find stimulating, as opposed to some objective standard by which the content can be evaluated, such as penetration. (Id.)

I strongly disagree with these policies.  While I have not been incarcerated in prison, I question the harmful effects pornography can have on its inmates, and am deeply troubled by the broad sweep that these policies can have – swallowing up non-explicit materials that have considerable value.  While prison exists to deny agency to its inmates, one cannot help but wonder if these policies beg the question about pornography’s supposed harmfulness.  In fact, research shows that more porn = less rape.  While there are other covariants at play, as everyone who has read Freakonomics knows, the results of isolating pornography and analyzing the porn-rape relationship have been in porn’s favor.  Beyond rape, the gratification of pornography may replace or inhibit other criminal or undesired activities as well.  In short, the premises that prison guards’ penological interests rest upon – that porn is bad and makes people do bad things – are beginning to be proven as bullshit.

When I debated the Indiana commissioner on Fox News, his rationale was to “promote public safety in Indiana.” Give me a break. Is Mary Homemaker “safer” because a convict doesn’t have a porn mag? He also stated that he wanted to see his prisoners devote their time to more constructive pursuits. This being Fox, I didn’t get a chance to cross examine him, but I presume he didn’t mean ass-raping one another. The biggest load of bullshit he slung was the meme that prisons need to ban porn because they want to promote a non-harassing environment for prison guards.

Seriously? You want to be a prison guard, but you can’t handle the sight of a guy reading Hustler? I got news for you if you’re “offended” by the sight of a guy jacking it to porn — you can’t handle being a security guard at a candy store, let alone being a prison guard.

The rationale for these bans clearly has nothing to do with “safety,” and it has nothing to do with the feminist-imposed “hostile work environment” bullshit. It has to do with an erotophobic attitude, fostered by superstition, and then fertilized with the crap of cheap political points.

Nonetheless, prisons have erected a high wall around themselves, their guards, and their asinine policies.  In a way, it is logically consistent for an enterprise that exists largely as a consequence of unjust and counterproductive policies such as the war on drugs to have special legal protection allowing it to further screw the people entrusted to its care. See Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 407 (describing moden prison administration as an “inordinately difficult undertaking”).  As such, challenged to these policies, however well deserved and meritorious they are, seldom succeed.

For the Record … Anti-Mormonism is not “bigotry” (neither is any other anti-religious sentiment)

James Fallows over at the Atlantic says, “Just for the Record: Anti-Mormonism Is Bigotry Too.”

No. No it is not.

Fallows sums his position up:

To be against Mitt Romney (or Jon Huntsman or Harry Reid or Orrin Hatch) because of his religion is just plain bigotry. Exactly as it would have been to oppose Barack Obama because of his race or Joe Lieberman because of his faith or Hillary Clinton or Michele Bachmann because of their gender or Mario Rubio or Nikki Haley because of their ethnicity. (source)

If a candidate believes in trickle-down economics, and you are against him for his beliefs, that isn’t bigotry. That’s looking at his views, realizing that they are incompatible with logic, and dismissing him because he’s an idiot.

If you are against someone for being Hispanic or Black, that’s bigotry. The color of someone’s skin doesn’t necessarily say anything about their beliefs or how they will behave.

But being against someone for what they believe, that’s not bigotry. That’s being a rational person. And there is no way I want someone leading my country if they believe that some snake oil salesman found magic gold tablets, that only he could see, and read some magic words from it, and discovered that people should wear magic underwear. Mormonism is stupid, and anyone who believes in it is too irrational to hold the remote control at my house, let alone the nuclear launch codes.

That’s not bigotry. A Mormon can wake up, smell the reality, and stop believing in bullshit. That day, the Mormon magically stops being a Mormon, and he starts being a normal rational human.

Marco Rubio can’t wake up tomorrow and say “y’know, I’m sick of being Cuban. I think I’ll be Irish now.” Hating on him for being Cuban — that’s bigotry.

Don’t mistake this for a post singling out the Mormons. Their beliefs are no less idiotic than those of any other cult. If you believe in a magic space zombie Jew, you’re not rational enough to be president either. At least not in my eyes. Islam? It doesn’t have any edge over Mormonism or Christianity.

The analysis gets a little tricky with Jews (sigh, doesn’t it always). You have to figure out if you’re dealing with a secular Jew or a religious one. Sammy Davis Jr. would have been unqualified to be President in my eyes, not because he was black, but because he believed that there is a magic space man who, after creating heaven and earth, decided that he didn’t want people to eat bacon, but he did want people to cut the tips off of little boys’ penises. Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Golda Meir were qualified to run things. Joe Lieberman? Fuck no.

If you believe in some magic voodoo shit, good for you. If it works for you, believe it. I don’t care if you believe in a magic pink monkey that flies out of the ass of whales with a blue bucket on its head singing show tunes.

If you believe in such things, you still might be the coolest guy in the world. I would fight with everything I have to protect your right to believe in those things — no matter how I feel about them. I might even want to be best friends with you. I have friends who believe in some of the goofiest shit ever, from Orthodox Jews to Christians to Muslims, and I even think I have a Scientologist in there somewhere. Being religious is no disqualification from being on my good side.

But there’s no damn way I’d vote to let them run the country — not until they wake up from their self-imposed delusion.

If you disagree, you’re in good company. My view is totally screwed. I doubt we’ll ever have an openly-Atheist president. Not until there is a revolution.

As an Atheist, I don’t call that “anti-Atheist bigotry.” If you wouldn’t let me run things because I don’t believe in goblins, it doesn’t make you a bigot. It just makes you disagree with something that I have chosen to believe (or not believe, as it were).

That’s not bigotry.

S.C. Public School Invites Christian Rapper to Perform

I understand why people want the government and the public schools to back up their religion. Here you have a bastardization of a 2000 years old cult. It is based upon lies, fairy tales, and superstition. How else are you going to perpetuate this set of beliefs without brainwashing impressionable young kids with it, or getting the government to stamp its seal of approval on it?

If christianity is such a good idea, it ought to sell itself without this blatantly unconstitutional foolishness.

H/T Death and Taxes

A Message About Texas Governor’s “Religious Revival”

As if you needed more evidence that Herman Cain doesn’t belong in office

Naturally, his candidacy is no more serious than Sarah Palin’s nomination for a Rhodes Scholarship, but this guy is a constitutional train wreck.

He claims that any community has a right to ban a mosque in their community. Fuck the First Amendment, Boo Boo!

No, Herman, No. No you can’t. While I personally would like to see mosques, synagogues, and churches all banned from every community as a blight causing adverse secondary effects, I accept that the First Amendment stands in the way of that. Herman isn’t bright enough to know that.

“Conservatives” — meet your reality. Bachmann signs pledge to wipe her ass with the Constitution

Michelle Bachmann, someone unqualified to clean my toilets, has jumped out ahead of the pack as the new conservative darling.

Anyone who thinks of themselves as a conservative should either change name tags or have their heads examined.

Bachmann is in the news today for signing a pledge that she will fight homosexuality and pornography. (source) You see, the damn liberals want to tell us how to run our lives. And, government that governs best governs least. Right?

So lets make sure that the government stays out of our lives and respects the Constitution by, ummm, errr… well, trying to influence who people fuck. Lawrence v. Texas be damned… and we, umm… well we love presidential candidates who sign pledges to fight against free expression.

You know, because the founders didn’t jerk off to internet porn, so it must be outside the protection of the First Amendment, right?

Honestly, if you read this blog and you don’t hate Michelle Bachmann, stop reading and don’t come back. Seriously. Fuck you.

ACLU challenges Nevada’s marriage officiant requirements

By J. DeVoy

The ACLU is suing the State of Nevada and Clark County – where Las Vegas is located – over laws that require non-governmental marriage officiants to have a religious affiliation.  While anyone can perform a marriage in Nevada, he or she must obtain a certificate to solemnize the marriage based on the fact that he or she has a religious affiliation.

One of the plaintiffs, Raul Martinez, claims to be an atheist and member of the American Humanist Association.  If successful, the suit would end – or at least compromise – the state-and-religious duopoly over marriage in Nevada.

One of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Allen Lichtenstein, is a friend of the blog, and we wish him success in this case.  In addition to many other First Amendment and civil liberties-related cases, Allen was recently involved in litigation for handbill distributors, political activists, street preachers and impersonators, so that they could continue their activities on the Las Vegas strip’s casino-owned sidewalks.

Scumbags Welcome!

One of the clergy members that I have always admired was an old Italian priest I knew years ago. His congregation was limited to a maximum security prison — including death row. He explained to me that ministering to the condemned was the most rewarding assignment he had ever received. He then explained a story from christian mythology to me that he found at Mark 2:17, In that passage, Jesus is eating and drinking with some real sleazeballs, and the “good people” take issue with him for it.

And Jesus, hearing it, said to them, Those who are well have no need of a medical man, but those who are ill: I have come not to get the upright but sinners.

A church in Lake County, Flori-duh seems to put this piece of mythology at the center of a recent outreach project. The church put up a billboard that stated “Scumbags Welcome.” Naturally, the “good people” of the 352 area code took issue with the church, called the city, and complained. Much to the City’s credit, it found that the church was well within its First Amendment rights. (source)

As Goes Iowa…

By Chad Belville, Guest Satyriconista

Iowa, a square state in the Heartland, is one of the few states in the US that allows any two adults of legal age to marry, regardless of gender. Unlike every other state where Supreme Courts found that government should legally recognize the unions of two same-sex adults, the Iowa decision was unanimous and shot down all arguments against limiting legal recognition, including those of tradition, religious bias, and the red herring argument that removing the gender restriction of two adults to enter into a bi-lateral contract will lead to allowing persons to enter into contracts with plants, animals, or upend the entire bi-lateral nature of the marriage license and allow polygamous marriages. The decision was well-written and should be a foundation for all other states to follow.

Immediately following the decision, the usual right-wing activists vowed to reverse it and take those rights away with an amendment to the Iowa Constitution. This requires approval by both House and Senate in two consecutive sessions of the Legislature followed by a popular vote. Democrats in control of both chambers refused to bring the issue to the floor, thus maintaining the equal rights of all adult citizens.
This past November, Republicans took control of the Iowa House of Representatives, who vowed to pass a bill that could eventually send the issue to the voters. The Iowa Senate remained in control of the Democrats and the Leader of the Senate, Mike Gronstal, has vowed not to bring this discriminatory amendment for a vote. Senator Gronstal can effectively keep such an insidious vote at bay for this legislative term but what happens beyond 2012 remains a mystery. His position is that civil rights of minorities should never be subject to approval by a popular vote, and he is absolutely correct.

As more time passes, more people realize gay people are not imported from far-away lands to indoctrinate kindergarteners but instead are their friends, neighbors, and relatives. Attitudes change and the urgency to take away the legal right to not testify against a same-sex spouse fades. These right-wing wackos know that time is not on their side; they know that if they do not pass constitutional amendments right now their battles will be lost as public opinion turns against them. Massachusetts has a similar system of amendment; after passing once and failing the second time through both Houses the issue died off. The fanatics moved on to take away or prevent establishment of rights for gay couples in other states where their shrieking could be effective.

In the State of Iowa, one man really stands in their way. Senator Gronstal’s position on equality and civil rights has painted a target on his back for the social conservatives who wish to turn back time. The National Organization for Marriage will expend millions of dollars to unseat him as punishment for opposing their bigoted beliefs, regardless of whether or not they can ever succeed in passing an amendment through both Houses in consecutive sessions. They led a successful campaign to remove 3 of the 7 Justices from the bench of the Iowa Supreme Court so their threats must be taken seriously.

Over the next two years, tremendous pressure will be put on Senator Gronstal to allow a vote on the floor of the Iowa Senate. Groups that are friendly only to Ozzie and Harriet-style families but not any others will pour money into anti-gay campaigns in an attempt to roll back the rights of a very small minority for the sake of their religious purity. Iowa is a small state, and the money from outside organizations will have a serious effect on the outcome. For now, equality in marriage is the law of the land in Iowa, but it is extremely vulnerable. The old saying is that “So goes Iowa, so goes the country” which used to apply to Presidential primaries but applies here and now to the issue of equal rights in the eyes of government. I have donated directly to Senator Gronstal’s campaign and to OneIowa, the umbrella civil rights organization that is countering NOM’s campaign of bigotry. I will continue to donate all of my equal rights contributions to Iowa organizations because the battle there is so acute and my donation dollars can do the most good. While I support things like the Employment Non Discrimination Act, the outcome of national equal rights activism is not on such a tiny fulcrum as in Iowa. I am asking anyone that will listen to join me in donating to the campaign of Senator Gronstal and OneIowa where small donations WILL make a difference.

http://www.oneiowa.org/

http://mikegronstal.com/

First Amendment Alert! Author arrested for writing a book

Please can't global warming melt the ice caps a little faster?

I’m the first to admit that Phillip Greaves is not the most sympathetic figure in America. Greaves wrote “The Pedophile’s Guide,” which was originally for sale on Amazon.com before the online retailer bowed to public pressure and pulled the book from its online shelves.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with that.

But, I have a big problem with today’s developments. The Orlando Sentinel reports that Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd had Mr. Greaves arrested in Pueblo, Colorado on obscenity charges.

Lets remember that Grady Judd’s jurisdiction is home to meth labs, cops who diddle children, and (given the inbred nature of its residents) a pretty high incest rate.

Despite the “real crime” in his jurisdiction, Judd instructed his detectives to
request an autographed copy of the book. Mr. Greaves obliged and Judd used that as his justification for having Greaves indicted on obscenity charges in his little caliphate of inbred-methistan.

Greaves told ABC News last month he wasn’t trying to promote pedophilia and was not himself a pedophile: “I’m not saying I want them around children, I’m saying if they’re there, that’s how I want them to [behave].” (source)

The implications of this arrest should outrage you far more than any child molestation incident. That is not to minimize child molestation, nor is it me just trying to be provocative. If a child gets molested, our republic stands. If petty little white-trash sheriffs like Grady Judd can find a book they don’t like and have the author hauled off to jail for it, the First Amendment means nothing. Judd’s offense is compounded by the fact that Mr. Greaves does not live in Florida and has no connection to bibleburg Polk County except that he mailed a book there, at the express request of a law enforcement officer who was clearly trying to manufacture jurisdiction.

Judd made his disdain for the constitution abundantly clear.

Judd said he was frustrated that Greaves’ book was protected under freedom of speech laws, even though it was created “specifically to teach people how to sexually molest and rape children.”

“There may be nothing that the other 49 states can do, but there is something that the state of Florida can do … to make sure we prosecute Philip Greaves for his manifesto,” Judd said. (source)

I hope that Mr. Greaves can afford a spirited defense to his extradition. If he winds up having to face these charges in Polk County, I can’t imagine his defense lawyers being able to find jurors with the intellect or the ethics to stand up for the First Amendment. Naturally, I would imagine that a conviction will be overturned on appeal – but only after he spends a significant amount of time in jail awaiting that happy day.

And in the meantime, your Constitution will sit in that jail cell with him.

Anyone who is inclined to lack sympathy for Mr. Greaves should set that aside. I don’t ask you to care about Mr. Greaves. I ask you to care about your constitution. I ask you to realize what his happening in this case.

This is the same pig who locked up Chris Wilson for publishing photos sent to him by U.S. troops in Iraq. This is the same backward jurisdiction where a guy who said “shit” because he was going to jail got 179 days for that transgression. This is where a guy who took photos of consenting adults, at their request, for their own personal use, was pursued relentlessly for obscenity charges. This jurisdiction saw a 15 year old arrested for farting. Another kid was arrested for taking photos of a traffic light. Before all that, when an adult entertainment performer called the cops because she was being stalked, she wound being charged with obscenity.

Just like censorship minded swine from Anthony Comstock to Katherine MacKinnon, Grady Judd is obsessed with the power that comes from wielding the censor’s cane.

And if we let him get away with it, we all lose something precious.

When, and if, I find out who is defending Mr. Greaves, I will post a follow up with information on how to donate to his legal defense fund.

Christians should be slaves. Textbook fails to support that view. Panties are wadded.

When I hear American Christians speak, this is the magic space zombie jew that I see in my head.

by Randazza

Dennis and Aimee Taylor got their panties all in a wad because their son had to read the book “Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America,” in his personal finance class at Bedford High School.” (New Hampshire)

In the book, the author (Barbara Ehrenreich) recounts experiences she had while trying to make a living at minimum wage jobs all across America. She criticizes the current conditions in America, arguing that our economic system is unfair toward the poor.

So who is that most likely to piss off? You guessed it… “christians”.

Aimee Taylor is quoted as saying, “The author is a known social Marxist, hates everything American, everything that America stands for or was built on. I mean when you read the book you see that strongly in this woman’s agenda. It’s horrible.” (source).

The irony is pretty thick here — since Ms. Taylor and her husband are calling for mass firings in the Bedford school district – because they don’t like the book that the district assigned to her son. You know, its Un-American to write a book saying that maybe even the down-trodden proles who share citizenship with us should, oh I dunno, live a decent life?

Of course, no whining christian hissy fit is complete without taking a quote about their imaginary friend out of context:

The Taylors also took issue with the book’s portrayal of Christians. In one scene, Ehrenreich attends a tent revival meeting, and is troubled by its emphasis on Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, rather than his social teachings.
“Jesus makes his appearance here only as a corpse; the living man, the wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist, is never once mentioned, nor anything he ever had to say,” Ehrenreich writes.(source)

I haven’t read the book, but this blogger has. Here’s how he explains the “wine-guzzling vagrant” passage.

The “wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist” line appears on page 68 as part of the author’s account of attending a tent revival near a residential elderly care facility at which she worked, and laments the fact the speakers dwell on the hellfire-and-brimstone, doom-and-gloom elements on the Bible and Christ’s crucifixion rather than his more positive messages. Her reference, while perhaps overly flippant, is not intended as a hateful denigration of Jesus. But I digress.) (source)

Fortunately, the school district had a measured response to these cult-members.

In response to the Taylors’ complaint, school district officials convened a materials review committee of teachers, administrators and community members to assess the book. Upon review, the committee ruled that the book’s educational merit outweighed its shortcomings.
“We found the book provided valuable insight into the circumstances of the working poor and an opportunity for students to demonstrate mastery of the ‘Financial Impact’ competency,” the committee reported.

Assistant Superintendent Chip McGee said the committee looked at the value of the book as a whole, rather than judging it on its objectionable passages.
“We need to balance the instructional value of the book against its shortcomings, rather than looking at any isolated passage, and rather than looking at the belief system of the author,” McGee said.(source)

Of course, Dennis and Aimee Taylor sure showed that there school district – they took their son out of school and decided to home school him. I’m sure that his future will be bright, as two fucking morons who believe in fairy tales will now be teaching him chemistry.

To put a cap on his stupidity, Dennis Taylor leaves us with this quote:

“Nobody gets out of the hole in this book,” Taylor said. “Really, is that the message we want to teach children in Bedford, who of all Americans ought to be capitalists, and produce the wealth that other people enjoy?”`(source)

And that, dear readers, is exactly what modern American christianity is all about — that those who live their lives following this false fairy tale should do so to ease the pain of their slavery. Being a “capitalist” means “producing the wealth that other people enjoy.”

Fortunately for Dennis Taylor, his son will very likely fulfill that role — as he dons his smock for a day greeting the People of Wal-Mart. He can produce the wealth that other people enjoy.

Jesus. Drunk again.

Image provided by Graphic Poetry.

Barbara Ehrenrich’s blog is here.

O’Dear O’Dumb O’Donnell

By Tatiana von Tauber

My oh my.  It just doesn’t get any better than this recording of Christine O’Donnell showing what anti-Tea Partiers have been cringing about all along.  While at first it’s funny O’Donnell doesn’t know much about the separation of church and state or the First Amendment, on the deeper side we know just how scary this can be. This is the same camp as Sarah Palin and no doubt a wonderful addition to the new and ”improved” version of the dumb blonde: the dumb brunette.  They’re few and far between and seem to congregate at Tea Party functions.  

video: http://www.dailykostv.com/flv/player.swf

The taming and domestication of religious faith is one of the unceasing chores of civilization.

Christopher Hitchens, awesome as always. Here.