May his days be few; may another seize his position. (NRSV)

Of course God works in mysterious ways and often needs his followers to do his dirty work. So if this movement gets enough momentum, it’s only a matter of time before some lunatic tries to act on this “biblical advice.”

The ironic thing, of course, is that these Christians seem forget one of Jesus’ main teachings: “Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you.” (Luke 6:24)

(via)

When a Christian Post story starts with the sentence “Conservative pastors rallied outside the Justice Department on Monday to test the limits of the newly expanded hate crimes law” you know you’re in for a treat. In wake of a new hate-crime bill that just passed, they wanted to make sure they could still “defend their freedom to proclaim biblical truths” (read: spew venom about homosexuality and gender identity).

“You may choose to disbelieve or disagree with us but you have no right to seek to silence us,” said Dr. Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America Action, as pro-gay clergy and some from the gay and lesbian community gathered with signs reading “My love is legit.”

“If this law is used to silence me or any of these preachers for speaking the truth, then we will be forced to conscientiously defy it,” Scarborough declared. “That is my calling as a Christian and my right as an American citizen.”
…
Clergy, religious broadcasters and conservative groups fear the legislation will subject them to prosecution for preaching what they believe the Bible says – that homosexual behavior is sin. While some believe they are exaggerating the effects of the expanded hate crimes law, the group on Monday was convinced they could be targeted for their speech and beliefs.

Yeah, not so much. They proceeded to say anti-gay things in hopes being arrested, giving them standing to challenge the law. To no avail. According to Dana Milbank, who was reporting on the event for the Washington Post, the cops were more interested in checking their blackberries than arresting the preachers. Why?

To break the new law, you need to “plan or prepare for an act of physical violence” or “incite an imminent act of physical violence”.  That shouldn’t be too controversial.  If the preachers really wanted to break the law they shouldn’t have stopped at “Homosexuality is a sin,” but continued to say “and should be punished by immediate stoning as the Bible says.  Let’s get ‘em, who’s with me?”

What followed the press conference was not an arrest, but a counter-demonstration when gay protesters took over the lectern to hold their own news conference:

“We’re here to say, my love is legit!” announced David Valk, an organizer of the National Equality March for gay rights.

Another speaker, Ian Thomas, went to the microphone and announced: “I was created a bisexual male. Just like many figures in the Christian Bible, I like boys and girls!”

[organizer Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission] turned angrily to the AV guy. “We’re not on the clock, are we?” He turned with equal anger to Valk. “You guys gonna help us pay for the microphones?”

The gay activist smiled. “God,” he said, “works in mysterious ways.”

In this case, God took the form of Chuck Fazio, from DC Podiums. Fazio was hired by the religious conservatives to provide the sound system for the event, but upon learning of their cause, he decided to donate his proceeds to the gay rights activists and to give them a chance at the microphone before shutting down the amplifiers.

How cool is that?  I used to do sound for events at the Library of Congress, but I never saw anything like it. Major kudos to Mr. Fazio.

(via Rob Boston’s post for of Americans United for Separation of Church and State)

Satire, constitutional law, and religion… is it my birthday already? (For the record: no, that’s in April. Send gifts.) This recent Onion article is perfect: Area Man Passionate Defender of What He Imagines Constitution to Be

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

“Our very way of life is under siege,” said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. “It’s time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are.”
According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left “traitors” to strip it of its religious foundation.

“Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: ‘one nation under God,’” said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. “Well, there’s a reason they put that right at the top.”

I find this hilarious, but partly because it’s so close to real life – as good satire must be. So many of the people vehemently opinionated on the separation of church and state don’t have any sense of what the constitution says on the subject or the history is. They often get our patriotic documents mixed up – even House Minority Leader John Boehner gets it wrong (check out my friend Paul Fidalgo’s article at Examiner.com).

Is there any way we can politely tell citizens “Here’s a copy of the Constitution for you to read, please don’t vote until you finish it”?

It was a good week for separation of church and state. The “I Believe” license plate was ruled unconstitutional, the DC Council might have the courage to stand up to the Archdiocese threats, and here’s one from earlier in the week I missed – Representative Lynn Woolsey, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote an op-ed in Politico calling for greater IRS scrutiny on the way the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) influenced the healthcare bill.

The role the bishops played in the pushing the Stupak amendment, which unfairly restricts access for low-income women to insurance coverage for abortions, was more than mere advocacy.

They seemed to dictate the finer points of the amendment, and managed to bully members of Congress to vote for added restrictions on a perfectly legal surgical procedure.
…
The IRS is less restrictive about church involvement in efforts to influence legislation than it is about involvement in campaigns and elections.

Given the political behavior of USCCB in this case, maybe it shouldn’t be.

What does it say about me that I was immensely cheered up by this?

Woolsey is absolutely right on this point – trying to affect legislation through lobbying is getting into sketchy territory for a 501(c)3 like the USCCB. Such nonprofits get their tax-exempt status and are not allowed to devote significant time lobbying. That’s what a 501(c)4 designation is for.

At the Secular Coalition for America, we were a 501(c)4 because we had the express purpose of lobbying congress and the administration. As a result, donations we received were not tax-deductible. Them’s the breaks. The ACLU, by the way, is in the same boat. My monthly donations are not tax-deductible (not that it makes a difference on the scale that I donate).

I don’t know if what the USCCB did was too much lobbying for a 501(c)3 – but that’s just the point, we don’t know if the IRS doesn’t investigate, and we have reason to be suspicious:

The influence the USCCB showed in the debate was considerable, the Wall Street Journal reports, calling the group “a major political force with the potential to upend a key piece of President Barack Obama’s agenda.”

The Journal reports that the USCCB swayed Congress with “behind-the-scenes lobbying, coupled with a grassroots mobilization of Catholic churches across the country.” Along with conducting private meetings with lawmakers like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the group circulated to churches a prayer supporting health care reform that included the phrase, “We will raise our voices to protect the unborn.”

Of course, we can count on other elected officials to completely miss the validity and nuance of the problem:

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who is Catholic, took to his Twitter account today to defend the USCCB, the Hill reports.

“The nerve of some citizens to petition their government,” he wrote. “In Woolsey-land, free speech is cause for retribution.”

Wow, is McHenry really calling for a complete overhaul of the non-profit system? Is he saying that even organizations getting special tax privileges should be allowed to influence government in any way they choose?

Or is he just clueless on separation of church and state?

The poor Vatican

The Catholic Church tries to foster a reputation for their good works with the poor (unless of course the poor want to use condoms, the naughty boys). Given their desired public image, I was rather surprised to read that they’re threatening to stop providing care unless they’re allowed to discriminate against homosexuals:

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Yeah, that just screams “charity” and “compassion” to me.

When I worked at the Secular Coalition for America, we did a lot of lobbying on the Faith-Based Initiatives. It was our position that, at the least, any organization receiving federal money should abide by the reasonable secular federal anti-discrimination laws.

And Catholic Charities – the 501(c)3 nonprofit arm of the Church – IS receiving federal dollars. Millions of federal dollars. Do they expect that money to come completely without any conditions?  It is not a fundamental right to receive $8.2 million in federal contracts.

Council member David Catania has the right idea, saying “If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes.”

I think my friend Rob Boston at Americans United for Separation of Church and State put it best on the AU blog:

Let me get this straight: The church is saying, “Unless you bow to our demands, we’ll stop taking your money”?

Church leaders really need to come up with some better threats.

Decisions, decisions…

Daniel, thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute on your excellent site and thank you everyone for being a part of this wonderful community.  I already recognize some of you from FriendlyAtheist.com and I feel quite at home.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Currie ruled that South Carolina’s “I Believe” license plates featuring a cross in front of a stained glass window were unconstitutional.  It was a pretty blatant endorsement of religion in general and a sect of religion – protestant Christianity – in particular.

Image from Crooks and Liars

But how, I hear you ask, was it an unconstitutional when the state government surely MUST have supported the same rights for all religious views?  Right?  Oh, wait.  Scratch that (from Americans United for Separation of Church and State’s blog):

When State Sen. Yance McGill was asked by the Associated Press in May 2009 whether he would support a Wiccan tag, he said, “Well, that’s not what I consider to be a religion.”

When asked about a Buddhist tag, he said “I’d have to look at the individual situation. But I’m telling you, I firmly believe in this [Christian] tag.”

Rep. Bill Sandifer also backed the “Christian” plate, but emphatically asserted that he would never do the same for a plate featuring Islamic symbols and language.

“Absolutely and positively no,” he said.

And, let’s not forget, [ed: Lt. Gov] Bauer himself also said no to the same question.

“I would not [support a tag for Islam] because that is not the group I support,” he said.

It doesn’t get much more obvious than that.  These state politicians wanted to give state recognition and privileges to a certain religious group that they, themselves, support.  Religious groups they didn’t personally support wouldn’t get special government treatment.

One thing I found interesting was the list of plaintiffs:  The Hindu American Foundation, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, three Reverends, and a Rabbi (all go before the bar… ahem.  Sorry, bad pun.)  It’s a clever strategy to involve religious individuals in bringing this kind of suit.  It prevents the appearance of “religion vs. atheism”.

But it’s telling that there were no atheists along with the religious individuals.  I’ve come across this before – the ACLU sometimes asks not to have any atheist plaintiffs because they think it’ll damage their chances of winning.  Sad, isn’t it?

It’s possible that our involvement would influence judges in these cases and attract negative public attention.  What does that say about our justice system and the state of our society?  Even as we fight (and win!) these battles in court, we have far to go in our culture.

The LA Times recently had an article about a small provision in the Senate version of the Heath Care bill:

Healthcare provision seeks to embrace prayer treatments

Backed by some of the most powerful members of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses.

The provision, which was added by Sen. Orrin Hatch and backed by John Kerry and the late Ted Kennedy, prevents discrimination against “religious and spiritual health care” by health insurers providing care through the proposed Gateway system. There was a similar provision in the House version of the bill, but that has since been removed in the newest version, HR3962. This Senate version still remains.

Health Care Deform

Pullquote: This would be an absolute invitation to organize
Annie Laurie Gaylor

The bill in question is S.1679, the “Affordable Health Choices Act.” The provision in question reads as follows:

‘‘The essential benefits provided for in subparagraph (A) shall include a requirement that there be non-discrimination in health care in a manner that, with respect to an individual who is eligible for medical or surgical care under a qualified health plan offered through a Gateway, prohibits the Administrator of the Gateway, or a qualified health plan offered through the Gateway, from denying such individual benefits for religious or spiritual health care, except that such religious or spiritual health care shall be an expense eligible for deduction as a medical care expense as determined by Internal Revenue Service Rulings interpreting section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as of January 1, 2009.” (Sec 3103(d))

If I’m reading this right (and there’s no guarantee that I am), this would affect all insurers who take part in the Affordable Health Benefit Gateway programs that the bill seeks to create in the individual states. These programs would be administered by the states and paid for by federal grants, and would assist those people without health care, either by steering them to programs they can afford or by providing subsidized health insurance. This particular provision would prevent any of those insurers from discriminating against “spiritual health care” provided that it fit the definition of deductible medical care.

As the bill says, the IRS tax code provides a definition of medical care in Title 26, Section 213(d). The tax code itself doesn’t specifically mention anything about prayer cures, but according to IRS Publication 502 (PDF), “You can include in medical expenses fees you pay to Christian Science practitioners for medical care.” (p. 7) Also chiropractors, but that’s another argument.

So that explains the emphasis in the LA Times article about Christian Science. The IRS already considered their services as medical expense for the purposes of tax deduction, so this provision would require certain health insurers to pay for it.

Critical Condition, or only Serious?

Pullquote: I offered this amendment because I believe that everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, should have access to healthcare.
Sen. Orrin Hatch

Naturally, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is all over this. Again from the LA Times article:

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group of atheists and agnostics that promotes separation of church and state, said the opportunity to receive payment for spiritual care could encourage other groups to seek similar status.

Gaylor’s point there is questionable. Certainly, many religious groups might try to get themselves injected into the tax code as providers of spiritual medical care, but there’s no reason to think that any will succeed. Further, as a spokeswoman for John Kerry pointed out, companies are prevented from discriminating, but that just means they are required to apply the same standards across the board. The insurers may declare that they will only provide reimbursement for procedures that meet their standards for efficacy. And that would leave the Christian Scientists out in the cold.

Still, it seems obvious that this provision will lead to many lawsuits and heated arguments, and add to the risk that the Government will be entangled with religion. So what’s the point? According to Orrin Hatch, “I offered this amendment because I believe that everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, should have access to health care.” But I don’t see how the provision as currently worded does that. One could easily add a provision that wouldn’t fund an insurer that discriminated on the basis of religion, so why the language of “religious and spiritual health care”?

Right now there are still more questions than answers, and more heat than light. While I think that the FFRF is banging the drum a bit too hard, I basically agree that the bill would be better off without the complications that this provision brings.

I suggest calling or e-mailing your Senators and requesting that this provision be struck from the bill. Tell them that if the provision remains, then during the next election you and all your friends will pray for their reelection — rather than donating, assisting their campaign or, you know, voting.

New York state politics is famously corrupt. For a variety of reasons, Albany remains one of the last bastions of machine politics. This can make arguments very partisan, and now a county executive out in Buffalo has stepped up to show just how easily “partisan” can make the jump to “insane.”

From the The Buffalo News:

… county executive [Chris Collins] referred to French seer Nostradamus’ prediction that the world would experience three Antichrists in conjunction with the Apocalypse, whose origin is the New Testament’s Book of Revelation.

Collins then said it’s generally accepted that the first was Napoleon, the second Hitler, and that he was “pretty sure” the third is [Assembly Speaker Sheldon] Silver, an orthodox Jew from Manhattan.

Frankly, it’s the reference to Nostradamus that pins the meter for me. Bad enough to bring up the anti-christ, but dragging the 16th century occult visionary into the mix pushes things into the “wacky” category.

To be fair, Collins has apologized and tried to explain his little joke:

The county executive said this in the context of Silver as part of Albany’s “three men in a room” budget process, in which the Assembly speaker, the State Senate majority leader and the governor make most budgetary decisions.

The “three men in a room” situation is real enough, which is a product of the machine politics I mentioned above. But to go from “three men in a room” to “three anti-christs” seems to imply that the other two men in the room represent the previous anti-christs. Comparing our hapless Governor Patterson to either Napoleon or Hitler is not so much insulting as laughable.

Screw it, I’m just going to assume that Collins just didn’t think about his joke before he let it slip. But the fact that this joke seemed like a good idea, even at first glance, either shows how partisan things are, or how loony Collins is.

I’m sure there’s a Democrat version, too…

(via)

(Image Credit: Paul Frederiksen)

This seems like one of those amendments you wouldn’t want to vote against, even if you’re a Republican. But what do I know?

Liberty Counsel has therefore named this special new prayer-in-action program Adopt a Liberal. And that’s exactly what we invite you to do — adopt a liberal who is in authority for regular, intense prayer in accord with St. Paul’s admonition to his disciple, Timothy. In fact, we expect that many of our friends and supporters will choose to adopt many liberals as subjects of regular prayer!

Their 15 targets are:

1. Mayor Michael Bloomberg
2. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
3. Congressman Barney Frank
4. Director John Holdren
5. Mr. Barry Lynn
6. Secretary Janet Napolitano
7. President Barack Obama
8. Senator Harry Reid
9. Speaker Nancy Pelosi
10. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
11. Senator Olympia Snowe
12. Alan Colmes
13. Keith Olbermann
14. Rachel Maddow
15. The “Unknown Liberal”

I guess most of us are #15, because even if we don’t consider ourselves liberal, you can be sure that Liberty Council does.

My favorite bio of theirs is Director John Holdren:

President Obama’s “Science Czar” is one of the administration’s many unelected, unconfirmed, and unaccountable senior policy officials. Holdren has suggested compulsory sterilization and abortion as appropriate policies for population control. He is on record as calling for the national government dictating how large families can be. Dr. Holdren is a “one world order” proponent, stating that, “a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources.” In an article he co-authored, Holdren advocated sterilization through government-controlled tainting of the water supply.

There’s more fear in that paragraph than in five minutes of FOX News!

Benny Hinn, from Texas, who draws large crowds to his Pentecostal revival rallies, was turned back at Stansted airport under new rules on visiting ministers of religion.

Many thousands of Pentecostal Christians travelled from across Britain and Europe and booked long weekend breaks in the capital’s hotels for his mission at the ExCeL exhibition centre in Docklands, East London, which had been due to begin on Thursday night.

They were left disappointed after Border Agency officials turned him back when he landed with his private jet because he had failed to obtain a “letter of sponsorship” from a church.

Instead, Mr Hinn flew on to Paris and tried to enter Britain at Luton airport but was again turned back. He was on his way back to France last night.

Now if only the US will refuse to let him return…

Seriously though, all he needs is a “sponsorship from a church”? Sounds easy to get. It seems this was due to red tape, not because he’s a religious huckster. A shame.

Someone else was able to take up the cross for Benny though:

Instead, another pastor preached and requested donations of up to £1,000.