In the name of god, I discriminate against you

If you listen to Republicans such as Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Senate Bill 17 provides relief for those occupational holders who have sincere religious beliefs. Of course, getting past the fact that back in the day Mr. Patrick, when he was the sports director at KHOU in Houston, once painted himself blue on television, is a little bit difficult.

For the rest of us, Senate Bill 17 would allow license holders to discriminate against members of the public whose lifestyles offend their sincerely held religious beliefs.

This bill is aimed specifically at the LGBT community in Texas and it would legalize discrimination on the basis of religious belief. No word on whether a license holder who attends a white nationalist church would be able to refuse service to African-American or Latino customers if it offended his religious beliefs.

It's no surprise that the sponsor of the bill is from a most rural area of the state around Lubbock. In many ways, once you get too far west of I-35, you enter a land that time forgot.

Once again we see religion used as a justification for discrimination. I'm sure there are those of y'all who will tell me it's an abuse of religion to use it for hate and discrimination. I would beg to differ. 

Religion serves two purposes: first, it serves to justify the existing order as somehow ordained by god; second, it serves to divide the masses so that those in power can maintain their grip on power. 

As to the first point, all you have to do is listen to the charlatans standing in the pulpit telling their followers that their suffering is proof of god's existence and love. The point is to distract the masses from the underlying forces that keep them poor. You feed someone enough of this suffer on earth and live high on the hog in heaven and they will start to believe it. They won't question the relationship between capital and labor. They will resist scientifically-based arguments regarding the harm we are doing to the planet because they have been sold on the notion that man is the shepherd of the planet and it's all in god's hands.

As to the second point, all you have to do is look at the history of war on this planet. Religious difference has long been the justification for bloodshed and it will continue to be. The Catholic church went to war against native peoples in its never-ending quest for gold and material wealth. The protestants led the charge against the native peoples in this country in search of cheap land and resources. Major denominations split in the mid 1800's over the question of slavery. The Southern Baptist Convention owes its existence to its biblical defense of slavery. And let's not forget that white churches fought against the end of Jim Crow in the last century. Then there are the white, evangelical churches in the suburbs and rural areas who encouraged their members to vote for a racist man whose on his third marriage and paid off a porn star he was sleeping with.

Now we have companies such as Hobby Lobby who don't want to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees and justify their refusal with a call to religion. We have bakers who justify their refusal to bake cakes for gay customers on their religious beliefs. And now we will have more service companies in Texas who won't even try to hide their bigotry as they wave a bible at customers they don't wish to serve.

This is not a minority misusing religion to serve their own ends - this is the logical outcome for a society whose founders were religious extremists who left England so they would be free to impose their will on others.

AG calls for a task force for a return to segregation

For anyone who isn't a wingnut or a complete moron, Attorney General Jeff Session's announcement of a religious liberty task force stands as another milepost on the road back to the era of Jim Crow.

Mr. Sessions claims that the purpose of this task force is to protect religious groups from persecution, except, of course, those who pray to a different god in a different way than the white folks down at the Baptist or Methodist congregations.

Religion still stands as one of the last vestiges of public segregation - even more so than suburban school districts.

The real purpose of the task force has nothing to do with protecting those who choose to pray in their own way. The real purpose is to allow groups and organizations to discriminate against those with whom they disagree under the cover of law.

Catholic hospitals and dioceses don't want to provide contraceptive coverage for their female employees because it shocks their religious sensibilities. But these same religious leaders have no problem proclaiming their support for the latest US bombing raid on a non-white country.

Hobby Lobby didn't want to provide contraceptive coverage for their female employees because god told them it was bad. But that didn't stop executives in the company from smuggling religious artifacts out of the Middle East.

A cake shop owner didn't want to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding and he hid behind his hateful religious beliefs. When pressed, he believed in what a preacher told him was meant by a text that had been translated umpteen times from various sources.

The god-fearing hypocrites at protestant churches across the country voted en masse for a man who boasted of degrading women and looking at teenage girls in states of undress. They voted for a man who has been married three times - each time to a woman he had an affair with while married to someone else.

This cry to protect religious freedom can be seen for what it is by anyone who wants to open their eyes and look around them. We are flooded with religious messages by politicians, school officials, sports organizations, government leaders and even our own money.

The real mission of Mr. Session's task force is to provide cover for those who wish to discriminate against gays, foreigners, blacks, non-English speakers and anyone else who doesn't fit into the mold of 1950's America.

Narrowly missing the point

nar·row

ˈnerō/

adjective

1. 1.

   (especially of something that is considerably longer or higher than it is wide) of small width.

   "he made his way down the narrow road"

   synonyms:

   small, tapered, tapering, narrowing; More
2. 2.

   limited in extent, amount, or scope; restricted.

   "his ability to get good results within narrow constraints of money and manpower"

   synonyms:

   limited, restricted, circumscribed, small, inadequate, insufficient, deficient "a narrow range of products"

Who knew that the word narrowly was so difficult to understand?

On Monday the US Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Masterpiece case -- otherwise known as the dude who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple case. In a 7-2 decision, the Court decided to punt the case down the road rather than deciding the case on its merits.

The media reported that the case was "narrowly" decided. Of course those who supported Jack Phillips' decision not to bake a cake for the gay wedding questioned how a 7-2 decision could be considered narrow. I would suspect that John Cornyn and Ted Cruz knew what "narrowly" deciding a case meant while they were sending out tweets in support of the decision claiming a victory for religion.

And, as an aside, if there was any doubt among y'all that the Republican Party stands for bigotry, hatred and discrimination, look no further than the officeholders who tweeted out about the decision and the words they used.

Anyone who paid attention in government class knows that the Supreme Court will always look to craft their opinion in a case as narrowly as possible since it is up to Congress to pass bills and the President to sign them into law. The purpose of judicial review (at least according to John Marshall) is to determine whether the application of a law is constitutional. The only time the Court strikes down a law itself as being unconstitutional is if there is no application of the law that can pass scrutiny.

This is the reason why lawyers will spend hours researching case law to find ways to distinguish the fact pattern in their case from existing precedent. If you can distinguish your case enough from those already decided by the court, you might just get the result you're looking for. And, in the same vein, it's why the lawyers on the other side will look for ways to pigeonhole the fact pattern in the case to an existing decision. As Tony D'Amato told his football team in Any Given Sunday, it's a game of inches.

In Masterpiece, the Court did not strike down the Colorado law Mr. Phillips was challenging. That would have been a broad decision - regardless of which way the Court leaned. In order to avoid having to make that decision, the Court looked at the application of the law in question and decided that the manner in which the hearing was held violated Mr. Phillips' right to freedom of religion (or, as I prefer, his right to use religion as a justification for discriminating against a group of people).

The Court wasn't happy that the commission who decided that Mr. Phillips violated the law seemed to be a bit hostile to his religious beliefs. Now, call me crazy, but if you're going to use religion as your defense to a claim that you discriminated against a couple because they were gay, then I think your religious beliefs are fair game in a hearing.

The funniest part of the right's celebrating the Court's ruling is that what the Court really did was instruct Colorado on the proper way to enforce their anti-discrimination statute. Let's think about this for a minute. The Court didn't declare the statute unconstitutional. The Court didn't say that forcing the baker to bake a cake for the gay couple infringed upon his religious beliefs. What the Court said was that the commission needed to conduct the hearing in a religion-neutral tone.

In other words, the next time the commission has to conduct such a hearing, the commission should let the baker give his reason for refusing to bake the cake. Then, instead of launching off into a speech as to how religion has long been used to justify racism, hatred, discrimination and violence, the commission should just ask him whether or not there was any other reason for him to refuse to bake the cake other than his belief that homosexuality was a sin.

If he were to say no, the commission could then vote and issue a ruling that he violated the statute in refusing to bake the cake. Based on Monday's decision, that would be upheld.

Of course the most amusing part of the opinion was Justice Gorsuch losing the plot and trying to explain what was a wedding cake and what wasn't and why it mattered.

God told me I couldn't bake you a cake

Suffer (bring) the children to me.

Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Those are some of the platitudes in the Bible with regard as to how to treat other people. But apparently not from the Bible that Cathy Miller of Bakersfield (CA) or her ilk read.

For you see, Ms. Miller is just the latest person to claim that her religious beliefs allow her to discriminate against those she just doesn't like. Amazing how we keep running into these folks.

Ms. Miller owns Tastrie's Bakery. A same sex couple came to her shop and asked her to make a cake for their wedding. Being more intent on discriminating against the couple than in making money, Ms. Miller refused. She said that her religious beliefs made it impossible for her to bake a cake for a lesbian couple.

The couple then filed suit against Ms. Miller, arguing that her refusal to make them a wedding cake was a violation of the state's civil rights statute. Ms. Miller, on the other hand, argued that making a cake was an artistic expression protected under the First Amendment which meant she could choose the customers for whom she was willing to bake a cake.

Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe ruled in Ms. Miller's favor stating that designing a cake was different than baking a cake as it was an act of artistic expression. He did caution Ms. Miller that she could not refuse to sell a wedding cake to a same sex couple.

But here's the problem. Whether a baker designs a cake specifically for someone or just bakes a cake to put in the display case is a distinction without much meaning. Baking a cake is baking a cake. You throw some ingredients into a bowl, you mix them up and you throw it in the oven. When it's done you take it out and ice it. It appears that the only difference would be whether the baker baked the cake before or after the couple ordered it.

What Ms. Miller did is no different that what white business owners did during Jim Crow and what bankers did for years afterward. She is refusing service because she doesn't like a customer because of her sexual orientation. That is no different than refusing service because a person is black or catholic or a woman.

The fact that she relies on her religious beliefs to just discrimination tells you everything you need to know about religion. The fact that a judge ruled that it was okay for her to discriminate so long as she waved a bible in the air tells you all you need to know about the pernicious effect of religion on civil society.

Let them eat cake

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the case about the baker who refused, on religious grounds, to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple.

Amy Howe over at SCOTUSblog did an excellent analysis of yesterday's questioning from the Supremes. She believes the court will split (again) 5-4 in favor of the baker but wonders just how narrowly they will craft the opinion. She based her analysis on the change in tone of Justice Kennedy's questions from start to finish.

First, I must point out, once again, that religious belief is still the most popular justification for discrimination. Now I could go on and on quoting portions of the Bible in which Jesus preaches a message of equality and love and brotherhood. But I'm not.

Jack Phillips likes to call himself a christian. But he believes that the holy word gives him the right to discriminate against those whom he doesn't like. The latter day charlatans who preach that homosexuality is a sin worse than any other act like they are quoting the word of god when they launch into their hateful spiel. The only problem is the book they are quoting from has been translated countless times from multiple languages. There's no guarantee that the words they are quoting in 2017 are the same words written in the original texts.

But we digress.

The issue is whether a privately run business has the right to decide whom they wish to provide with services. This is different from the argument in the 1960's that private buses, trains, hotels and restaurants were public carriers. Mr. Phillips claims that forcing him to make a cake for a same sex wedding would somehow violate his right to free speech. I'm not really buying that one because food is not speech. Food is food and food is for eating.

Does requiring him to bake the cake violate his right to freedom of religion? As far as I can tell, no one is telling him what to believe or how to do it. However, would requiring him to bake the cake trample upon his right to the free exercise of his religion? That is a much closer question, I think.

What does it mean to exercise one's religion? Baking and selling cakes is a commercial enterprise, not a religious one. Maybe he says he's spreading the word of god by baking cakes - but is that exercising one's religion?

And what if in exercising that religion a person, or entity, intentionally discriminates against another based upon that person's race, sex, ethnicity, national origin or sexual orientation?

And, as an aside, at what point do we finally acknowledge that religion serves more to divide us than to unite us? White protestant churches were very prominent in the fight to preserve Jim Crow segregation in the South. All of the major protestant denominations split in the 19th century over the question of slavery.

Back in college I took a class on sociology and religion and our professor played for us a recording of an Emo Philips routine that I have looked for off and on for years -- and finally found it.



There are some serious issues that need to be addressed in this case. The Court must decide how much discrimination in private commercial enterprises is acceptable. If the Court decides it is acceptable then the Court must decide whether the enterprise wishing to discriminate must give a reason for its choice. If so, the Court must decide where to draw the line for a legally valid rationale for discrimination. Finally, the Court must decide which groups can be discriminated against for which reasons. It remains to be seen whether the Court will develop a balancing test to determine how large a community has to be in order to permit discrimination.

Regardless of the decision, the law of the land will most likely be determined by the vote of one justice - Anthony Kennedy. Not quite what the Founding Fathers had in mind, I daresay.

Praying for hypocrisy

Last week I was at the Fort Bend County Courthouse in Richmond and noticed a church down the road with a sign announcing a prayer service for the Dallas police officers who were killed the previous week.

I couldn't help but wonder if they held prayer services for Alton Sterling or Philando Castile, too.

Pronouncements such as this are the subtle ways we perpetuate racism and prejudice in this country. Bumper stickers reading Back the Blue and Cops' Lives Matter are ways that folks can express their prejudice without being so blatant. And just what the fuck is Pray for Police supposed to mean? They're the ones killing black men at point blank range. Do they want absolution or something?

This is how we indoctrinate our children to accept blindly what they are told by authority figures. This is how we indoctrinate them to hate and look upon those who are different with disdain or fear. Through religion we attempt to paper over the hypocrisy of murder as a sin and blind support of the military and the permanent war.

Interesting how the Jesus fought for the benefit of the downtrodden and spoke for those without a voice while the modern churches that use his name speak for those in power and those with money.

We'll just have to wait and see for whom prayer services are held the next time a young black man is gunned down by a man wearing a badge.

Trying to revive the spirit of George Wallace

The states of Texas and Mississippi have decided that the 14th Amendment just doesn't apply to them when it comes to recognizing same-sex marriage. Despite a Pentagon directive that the National Guard units in the states extend benefits to same-sex spouses in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in the DOMA case, someone in Texas decided to ignore it.

Officials cited the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman found in the Texas Constitution as justification for denying equal protection to the spouses of same-sex marriages. Maj. John Nichols did tell those affected by the decision that they could apply for benefits at federal installations and that the Texas National Guard would not deny them benefits.

This is precisely the issue I wrote about some time back regarding the inevitability of the legalization of same-sex marriage. These acts of defiance by Texas and Mississippi bring into question whether same-sex spouses are being treated the same as traditional spouses.

Forcing same-sex couples to apply for benefits at a federal installation discriminates against same-sex couples as they are being required to do more to obtain the benefits they are legally entitled to receive. All that remains is for one couple to refuse to bow down and then walk over to the courthouse to file suit alleging that their civil rights were violated.

From the Dallas Morning News:

Pentagon officials said Texas appeared to be the only state with a total ban on processing applications from gay and lesbian couples. Spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen said federal officials will process all applications from same-sex couples with a marriage certificate from a state where it is legal. 

Alicia Butler said she was turned away from the Texas Military Forces headquarters in Austin early Tuesday and advised to get her ID card at Fort Hood, an Army post 90 miles away. She married her spouse - an Iraq war veteran - in California in 2009, and they have a 5-month-old child. 

"It's so petty. It's not like it's going to stop us from registering or stop us from marrying. It's a pointed way of saying, 'We don't like you," Butler said. 

She said she was concerned the state would withhold survivor benefits if something happened to her wife while she was activated on state duty rather than on federal deployment.

It is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause for a state to recognize the out-of-state marriages of some of their residents while not recognizing those of others - particularly since the only reason is the sexual orientation of those involved.

The leaders of both Texas and Mississippi should be ashamed of themselves. Being seen as supportive of same-sex marriage may not be a vote-getter in either state, but guaranteeing equal protection under the law to the citizenry should trump base politics. Of course we all know that the State of Mississippi has a pretty abysmal record when it comes to equal rights. We also know that the establishment (white) churches played a large role in defending segregation in the 1960's. The circle of good ol' boys who have run Mississippi for generations is slowly, but surely, coming to an end and they are doing everything they can to cling to power for as long as possible.

The right wing in this country (and others) have long used religion as their justification for fighting the extension of equal rights to the populace. That great opiate of the masses has been very effective in keeping the oppressors in power.

These western fundamentalists are every bit as wrong as their Islamic fundamentalist cousins in, and around, the Middle East. I find it very amusing to listen to the wingnuts express their hatred for those who would advocate theocracy in other parts of the world while they do their best to build a theocracy at home.

Give us this day our daily opiate

From the "ignorance must be bliss" files we have this bumper sticker found in my daughters' school parking lot that gives us the potent mix of guns, god and the GOP.

This idea that god is on our side because we are more righteous than anyone else is key to they way in which religion is used as an organizing tool by those in power. Forget that little commandment that tells us not to kill. That's just a technicality. 

The logic is flawed from the get-go. You say your god is a loving god. You say your god loves all of "the children." You tell us that your god is pro-life. Yet you believe that this god of yours would, and should, cast his blessings on the people carrying guns around and firing on other folks because of the color of their skin, or the clothes they're wearing or the religion they practice or whatever reason we're at war somewhere in the world.

Enjoy your opiate.

On ritual, superstition and subjugation

While most of us are preparing to participate in the pagan celebration of the winter solstice, I had a couple of questions for the superstitious among us.

If we are to believe, as the superstitious around us do, that there is a loving, all-powerful god behind the curtain pulling the strings in this universe of ours, how do you explain what happened in Newtown?

If you believe that this loving, all-powerful god of yours knew every one of us before we were ever born, how do you explain why this god would have snuffed out the lives of 20 children in a hail of gunfire?

And don't tell me that it's to test the faith of the parents. If that's your argument then we are all just pawns in someone else's game. What message does that send to our children - that this god they are told loves them has no compunction about ending their lives in an instant?

If your god does exist as some kind of a prime mover then your god is an arbitrary and capricious god. Your god is a cruel and sadistic deity.

And the massacre also points to another loose end. If your loving, all-powerful god really does sit in a throne in an alternative universe called heaven, most (if not all) of those 20 children will never enter the gates.

For those steeped in liturgical superstition, when that little baby is baptized it's only a ritual that means next to nothing until the bureaucrats in charge have determined that the child has been confirmed. And that only happens after the child is thoroughly indoctrinated in the particular flavor of superstition you practice.

For the rest of the superstitious among you, a person is only "saved" from their miserable existence in this universe if they buy into the sect's superstitions. But, until that time, you don't pass Go and you don't collect your $200.

But that's the dirty little secret that no one wants to talk about and that no one dare admit. Just how many folks do you think would buy into the great opiate of the masses if that was explained to them?

Religion has always been a tool to subjugate the masses and to quell dissent. It is used today as a tool of the ruling elite to justify the suffering that they have wrought on the rest of the world. It is used as a tool to justify the mass killings of innocent men, women and children around the world. It is used as a tool to inflame prejudice. It is used as a tool to convince the downtrodden that it was ordained by god that they be exploited and left to rot like garbage.

Just something to think about.

A little smoke and mirrors, please

All of the outrage in the Muslim world over an internet movie has nothing at all to do with folks being pissed off about someone taking potshots at Mohammed. It's a nice pretext and it's a good way to get the people fired up. But that's just the sideshow.

What better way to distract the common folk from their everyday misery and deprivation than to set a few fires and chant "Death to America!"

The last time I checked, a movie never killed anyone but, over in Syria, Bashir al-Assad has been killing his fellow Muslims like it was going out of style. Where are the protests across the Middle East about the killing machine in Damascus?

If the punishment for theft is having your hand cut off - what's the punishment for ordering the murder of thousands of fellow Muslims? Um, wait a second, we can't have folks thinking about that. What can we do to distract them?

Oh, the power of religion. That opiate of the masses.

Running a candidate who was in the business of exporting American jobs and stripping down companies to fill his bank account?

Running a candidate who's looking for ways to lower the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans while forcing lower income folks to shoulder more of the burden?

Running a candidate who thinks health care is a business, not a right?

Just wave that Bible around and tell everyone who'll listen that your opponent's not a god-fearing Christian and you just might be able to distract folks from what you're really about.

Religion is just a sideshow. Get people to accept it on faith without asking questions and you've got yourself a compliant army willing to put blinders on and march in formation at your beck and call. Tell them their reward for suffering is a(n) (after)life in paradise and watch them ignore the class distinctions and social stratification around them. Tell them that to kill is a sin - but only if the one of the other end is also a believer - and they'll be lining up to go to war.

But I digress. Now what was I writing about?

The company you keep

While there is reason for death penalty opponents in Texas to be happy thanks to the Court of Criminal Appeals' stay of the scheduled execution of Marcus Druery, there is troubling news from around the world.

In Mali, an unmarried couple were buried up to their necks and stoned to death for having sex outside marriage. The death penalty was ordered by Islamists who control large swaths of northern Mali following a coup earlier this year brought about by the army's inability to quell a rebellion in the north of the country.

The stoning was witnessed by some 200 people who watched as rocks were thrown at the couple's exposed heads. The woman fainted after the first few blows while the man shouted once and then fell silent.

Over in Iran four men were sentenced to death for their role in a banking scandal that threatened to bring down Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. During the rush to privatize state-owned enterprises an investment bank forged documents in order to obtain loans from various banks. Two other men were sentenced to life in prison and 33 other men were sentenced to at least 25 years behind bars.

It is troubling enough that our government feels the need to satiate the blood lust of the public and kill inmates convicted of murder. The death penalty serves no other function than revenge - and even then it does a poor job. The death penalty brings no closure as the family and friends of the victim are still left with a hole in their lives. The death penalty also eats up precious resources due to the amount of money the state is forced to spend to prosecute a death case as well as to provide an attorney for the accused. Then there is the cost of housing the inmate in solitary confinement in a special unit.

But the state-sponsored murder of someone accused of theft or drug trafficking or having sex without being married is beyond appalling.

The use of murder to enforce religious tenets is the sign of a failed religion. It is also a perversion of the supposed moral underpinnings of religion. Ironically enough it was Jesus who supposedly uttered the famous line "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I guess I could get up on my soapbox and write about the ways in which religion is used as a tool by the ruling class to keep the masses subjugated. I could write about how religion is used by the ruling class to keep the masses docile and waiting for their supposed heaven on earth after death rather then fighting for their piece of the pie while they can still eat it. But that's a topic for another day.

Besides, killing a thief or a young couple who slept together violates the tenet most used to justify the death penalty in this country - an eye for an eye. There is no justification for the state-sponsored murder of someone who didn't take another's life (not that there's any justification for it in that circumstance, either). In the case of northern Mali and Iran, the death penalty is being used as a means of keeping the population under control.

And while we don't kill inmates for non-capital crimes in the United States, our continued use of the death penalty puts us in the same category of nations as Mali, China and Iran. Is that really the company we want to be associated with?

Plead guilty and pass the Bible

We've had our share of judges in Harris County who didn't someone understand the reason the Founding Fathers wanted a separation between church and state. There are plenty of wingnuts out there who think there should be a much closer relationship between the government and their particular religion. Of course if the state were cozying up to a different religion there might be a different response.

Now he have a judge in South Carolina who felt it appropriate to require a defendant in a felony drunk driving case to read the Book of Job and write an essay about it.

Cassandra Tolley has had a rough life. She was abused as a child and set on fire. She was unable to overcome her demons and turned to alcohol. She got drunk and crashed into another car, injuring two people. She pled guilty and the judge, Michael Nettles, sentenced her to eight years in prison followed by five years probation.

Then came the reading assignment.

Ms. Tolley didn't object and the seemingly arbitrary condition was entered into the court's order.

All of the attorneys that were interviewed for the story seemed to think the condition was a stroke of genius on Judge Nettles' part.

No one questioned what business it is of the court's what books a defendant reads. No one questioned what business of the court's it is if and how a person practices religion.

If Ms. Tolley wants to read the Bible and write a book report, great. Have at it. But having that assigned as a condition of her sentence crosses over the line.

Religion has absolutely no place in the courtroom.

Of course there was no problem in this case. It wouldn't have been as big a story if someone had objected. But what about the next defendant? What book of the Bible will Judge Nettles assign next? And the more important question is what happens if a defendant opts not to undergo compulsory bible study? Had Ms. Tolley not accepted her assignment, would her sentence have been more severe?

That's the question that needs to be answered. If the court is handing out a more lenient sentence because a defendant is okay with reading the Bible, that means the court is handing out a more severe sentence to a defendant who doesn't want to participate in the judge's bible study therapy.

And that's the danger of mixing religion and the state. Judge Nettle's sentence is an endorsement by the state of Christianity. What about Muslim or Jewish defendants? Will the judge assign chapters out of the Koran? The Talmud?

The sentence is a step down a slippery slope. A slippery slope that seems so innocent. A slippery slope that most people won't think twice about. And that's why it's such a dangerous precedent.

Jesus loves me...

There are rants and then there are rants. Enjoy.

H/T The Houston Press

He just couldn't help himself

Richard Land is the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. He is regarded by some as the most powerful person in the Southern Baptist Church. He also can't keep his mouth shut.

Mr. Land has seen fit to criticize so-called "black leaders" for bringing the nation's attention to the killing of Trayvon Martin. In Mr. Land's eyes, President Obama was wrong to address the issue and that the president "poured gasoline on the racialist fires" in order to prop up his floundering campaign.

When asked if regretted his comments, Mr. Land stood by them and then turned around and defended George Zimmerman by stating that Mr. Zimmerman was right to be suspicious of a black youth. He added that black men are "statistically more likely to do harm" than white men.

This from a man who is still trying to remove the stench of slavery and racism from the Southern Baptist Church. He was the architect behind the church's apology for its support of slavery back in 1995.

"Part of racial reconciliation is being able to speak the truth in love without being called a racist and without having to bow down to the god of political correctness." -- Richard Land

We can all feel free to disagree about what happened that February night in Florida and about what the proper remedy is. But for the man behind the curtain to make the case that black men are more likely to be violent than whites is beyond incomprehensible.

Even worse, according to Aaron Weaver, a blogger at Baylor University, Mr. Land's comments weren't even his own. He lifted them, without attribution, from an article by Jeffrey Kuhner in the right wing Washington Times (I guess no one's told Mr. Land that the Times is the mouthpiece for the Moonies).

But Mr. Land has an excuse. It is a live radio show, after all. How can he be expected to tell the listeners that he's reading verbatim from an article written by someone else? And, according to Mr. Weaver, this isn't the first time Mr. Land has done it.

Hey, it's okay, Mr. Land. Hypocrisy and the Baptist church go together like Martin and Lewis, peanut butter and chocolate, and barbecue and beer. I understand that you want the government to get its nose out of the way businesses screw workers and corporations rape the environment. You'd much rather have the government impose your reactionary views on the populace.

Sticks and stones

 “I have loved things about you and I have hated things about you and there is a lot I don’t understand about you. I will not pray for you.” - Hamza Kashgari

That tweet has 23 year old Saudi journalist Hamza Kashgari looking at the possibility of death for the offense of blasphemy.

Mr. Kashgari posted that message, and two others, on Twitter last weekend, the birthday of the prophet Mohammed. Mr. Kashgari fled Saudi Arabia last Thursday but was arrested at the airport in Kuala Lumpur by Malaysian authorities. He was deported back to Saudi Arabia on Sunday.

This past week marked the 50th anniversary of the embargo against Cuba. Following the Cuban revolution, the Cuban government nationalized the sugar industry and seized foreign-held property on the island. President Kennedy, acting on behalf of American corporate interests, denounced the revolution, instituted the embargo and proclaimed that the US would not rest until Castro's repressive government fell.

Yet, despite its claims to support freedom and democracy around the globe, the US government has continued to sell arms to the repressive, undemocratic regime in Saudi Arabia.  Just last month the Obama administration announced the sale of $30 billion worth of fighter aircraft, ammunition and logistical support to Saudi Arabia.

Our government sends young men to die by the score "to defend democracy" yet we supply arms to one of the most oppressive regimes in the world. We provide the tools of death to a government that will murder its own citizenry for daring to say something disagreeable to the imams.

Of course at the same time we are doing our best to criminalize speech by enacting so-called hate crimes bills that enhance a charge because of the words someone spoke or the attitudes they held.

Now I would, if we were talking about a different act, write about how we all did things when we were in our twenties that we are ashamed of today and that we all acted foolishly and are probably lucky, in some instances, even to be alive today. But I'm not going to blame Mr. Kashgari's "transgressions" on his age. That would give the religious fanatics too much credibility.

The Saudi government seeks to control the thoughts of the Saudi people. Think Orwell and groupthink. I was listening to the BBC show World Have Your Say the other day driving back from the island. One of the guests was a Muslim named Sultan from Toronto. He argued that Mr. Kashgari had committed a criminal offense. Another guest asked him what would be accomplished by punishing Mr. Kashgari for what he wrote. Our friend Sultan then asked what letting Mr. Kashgari off the hook would say to the youth of Saudi Arabia.

His concern was the government's ability to control the thoughts of the Saudi people. He was more interested in preserving order. He couldn't wrap his head around the concept of allowing people to speak and communicate freely.

To answer Sultan, I would say that not pursuing charges against Mr. Kashgari would send the message that the government is more interested in freedom of thought and expression than it is in maintaining rigid control over the Saudi people. It would send the message that the government supports the notion that the people have a right to be left alone. It would indicate that the repressive rulers of that land have respect for the people they govern.

You're right, Sultan. We can't possibly allow that message to get out, can we?

Praise God and pass the ammunition

The right wing propaganda machine has been puffing overtime as we approach the 10th anniversary of the attacks on 9/11 telling us that Islam isn't a religion but an ideological cover for warmongering. We hear the constant chatter that it is a religion of hate and that it preaches destruction of anyone who doesn't worship in the same manner.

And then there's Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) who takes hypocrisy to a new level with his call for the Air Force to bring back the "Christian just war instruction." But just where does this idea come from? Could it be from the days when the Romans were looking for ways in which to whip the populace into a frenzy for a coming war? Could it have been a rationalization for the Crusades in which the armies of the Church invaded the Middle East and slaughtered untold numbers of people because they worshipped in a different manner?

Public Bible-thumpers like Senator Cornyn might want to take a second look at the Ten Commandments. I believe one of them is "Thou shalt not kill." Now, Senator, correct me if I'm wrong, but that commandment isn't modified in any way, shape or form, is it?

Sen. Cornyn, like most like-minded cowards in Washington (on both sides of the aisle), is only too willing to seek justification for sending our nation's young men to their deaths to achieve political goals. Cloaking his delusions of destruction in the words of the Bible only serves to show the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the hucksters in the pulpits.

The politics of exclusion

"Lord, I know that I always said that I'd never involve you in a baseball game. It always seemed silly. I mean, You got enough to do." -- Billy Chapel, For Love of the Game

*     *     *     *     *

"And more importantly, we're going to have to pray. We're going to have to do this prayerfully so that it's not by might nor by strength but by His power that this country will be turned back to Him. That's what we're going to do."  -- Ralph Reed, founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition

We all know that the wingnuts think God is a rock-ribbed, card-carrying conservative. I would think that, if such a being exists, that it has more important things to worry about than who wins a freaking election. I also find it quite arrogant (or maybe ignorant) for one group to proclaim that God is their God and no one else's.

Who's to say Ralph's crew of bible-thumping believers is right? Is Mr. Reed implying that anyone who doesn't support his agenda is not a true Christian? Is he implying that anyone who doesn't support his agenda doesn't believe in, or worship, God (in whatever name or form)?

What about Catholics and Jews and Muslims and Buddhists?

What about anyone who believes differently?

And what about Jesus's warning that it isn't our place to judge others?

And where does Mr. Reed place compassion, understanding and tolerance in the great pantheon of virtues?

Or does religion have nothing to do with this at all? Are Mr. Reed and his fellow travelers just using religion as a cover to organize a political movement? Karl Marx referred to religion as the opiate of the masses. Religion has long been used to quell the masses by promising them a brighter tomorrow once this miserable life is over.

This is a nation founded on religious freedom. The dour Pilgrims left England because they didn't want the King and Queen telling them how to worship. This nation was built on the backs of immigrants who brought their religions and their beliefs with them to America. The current nativist movement conveniently forgets that few of us were born here. We all came from somewhere else.

Beaten to death in Bangladesh

Imagine being brought before a religious council because you broke one of the Ten Commandments. You have no right to an attorney because it's not a formal legal proceeding. The only think you can do is plead for mercy. Your knees buckle when the head of the council announces you will be publicly lashed for your sin.

Nevermind if what you're accused of isn't a crime. If it's proscribed in the Bible, the Torah, the Quoran or any other religious tome, it's fair game for the religious council.

"What sort of justice is this? My daughter has been beaten to death in the name of justice. If it had been a proper court then my daughter would not have die." -- Dorbesh Khan, the father of Hena Begum

Hena Begum, 14, was alleged to have had an affair with her cousin, a married man, in Bangladesh. Village clerics issued the fatwa, or religious ruling, that Ms. Begum was to receive 80 lashes for violating Sharia law. After the lashing, Ms. Begum was admitted to a hospital for treatment of her injuries where she died six days later.

Last year another woman, Sufia Begum, was sentenced to 40 lashes for committing adultery. The 40-year-old woman died almost a month later after she was admitted to a hospital a week after the beating.

"Her body was swollen and I couldn't even recognise her." -- Taimur Rahman, Ms Begum's brother

Both of these incidents have taken place since the government of Bangladesh outlawed the practice of fatwas in early 2010. It is likely these incidents would never have made news outside of Bangladesh but for the deaths of the women. While these women died, how many others were beaten by religious officials for sinning? How many other religious councils openly flaunt the law in Bangladesh by issuing illegal fatwas?

Police have arrested six people in connection with the two deaths. No word on whether the men involved in the affairs were punished.