Archive for October, 2008

Hebbo!

Friday, October 10th, 2008

I’m tired of the hopelessness of rational thought and atheism. So, I’m going to join the easiest to join, and oldest, obviously bestest religion: Tarvuism.

It’s so Easy to Join! Take a look!


Say Hebbo! from Torvakian on Vimeo.

Tarvuists Believe:

* Tarvu is our Lord God
* There are two universes
* The Tarvunty is the Holy Book
* We should all “be nice”
* Men and women are equal (to each other)
* Tarvu’s Prayer should be said every day
* Octopuses are holy creatures
* Everyone has an invisible guardian from Universe A.1

And who wouldn’t want to join?

Join Today!

Praise Tarvu!

  1. http://www.tarvu.com/index.html [<]

Massachusetts School Board OKs Contraceptive Distribution – To Parents

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

The Massachusetts school made famous for its “Pregnancy Pact” scandal (17 pregnancies last year) has taken the bold and progressive move of authorizing distribution of contraceptives to students through the school clinic. Bravo!

Bullshit.

The school is getting praise for being receptive to student needs, and for being an icon of rationality, but it’s not being progressive. It’s being tyrannical, old fashioned, and ineffective. Why? Students must have parental consent to receive the contraceptives. Think about it. The students that are having sex and having unwilling pregnancies are not the kids who will be asking their parents to contact the school to allow them to receive contraceptives, let alone the kids who would even admit to their parents that they’re actually having sex (or thinking about potentially having sex, and would like to be prepared, just in case).

What’s really going on is a scare tactic. This is an underhanded, covert support of the continuously failed faith-based abstinence program. It forces a child to get parental consent not to have an unwanted pregnancy. It creates a no-win choice for kids who don’t feel comfortable talking to their parents about their private lives: either have unprotected sex or abstain from sex. That’s not a good or realistic set of choices.

And what about children who are having sex, but whose parents refuse to give permission?

This is not progress.

Proposition 8, the Mormons, and the New “Separate But Equal”

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

“Hate the sin, love the sinner” is a favorite phrase among many a Christian in today’s society. When Governor Sarah Palin told Katie Couric in her now infamous interview that her gay friend “happens to have made a choice that isn’t a choice that I have made,”1 the obvious implication is that she thinks being a homosexual is the equivalent of making a poor decision, “sinning,” if you will. And you know what? She has every right to feel that way. Many people would argue that she is wrong, but it is not illegal to hold that view. What should be illegal, however, is the attempt of anyone to use that belief as an excuse to give homosexuals less rights than heterosexuals. And whether or not it is a “choice” has absolutely nothing to do with it. Did Gov. Palin “choose” to be a fundamentalist Christian and a Republican? She might argue that she was born that way, or she might agree that it is a choice, but her rights remain the same regardless, simply because she is a human and an American. I am probably using Palin in my example, admittedly, because she is such an easy target, but Democrats fare no better in this issue. I am appalled that both the red and blue presidential and vice-presidential candidates are unable, or unwilling, to see the inherent dishonesty in claiming “tolerance” on the one hand and denying homosexuals basic human rights on the other. I am even further appalled that the tolerant and progressive step forward that has been taken in California is now threatened by the passage of Proposition 8.

One cannot help but draw a parallel between other past civil rights issues, such as the now embarrassing ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson that blacks would receive “separate but equal” treatment under the law.2 This is not the first time in our nation’s history, nor do I expect it to be the last, that religious groups have rallied together to fight against moral progress. If today’s typical Christian woman were alive in 1923, she might have argued that the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment would force her into the workplace. And in a way, the women and men who did believe this were right. The U.S. economy has changed drastically since the Civil Rights Act was passed (40 years after the ERA was defeated due to Christian opposition), and it is likely harder now for single-income families to make a living. But would any sane person argue that it wasn’t worth it? Sometimes, in fact most times, doing what is right costs something. There is no question for most people now that women and minorities should have equal rights, in the workplace and elsewhere. There is no question among many of the same organizations that fought against these exact issues.

So, what exactly is the cost of giving homosexuals the right to marry? From what I’ve seen, the only cost would be the swallowing of pride among those fighting against it. We have all heard the arguments that by preventing homosexuals from marrying, Christian groups are protecting the “sacred bond” of marriage and “traditional family values.” They say their own marriages will somehow be affected if homosexuals are permitted the same rights as heterosexuals. Surely they must realize that thousands of same sex marriages have already been performed in California, Massachusetts, and elsewhere. Has this had a negative effect on Christian marriages? Is it measurable? Is it quantifiable? If so, I’d like to see the evidence. If not, then I’d say they need a new argument. Additionally, there are plenty of heterosexual unions performed which Christian groups, in theory, ought to be vehemently opposed to, such as a marriage between two sadomasochists, a marriage in which the bride used to be a man, or a drunken Las Vegas marriage that is annulled within 24 hours. Christian groups might not like these situations, but they recognize that they do not have the right to take away these freedoms from these people. This creates a stunning double standard.

What about the belief that Christian groups hold that they will be forced to perform same sex marriages? As has been shown again and again, this claim is patently ridiculous. Religious organizations are currently permitted to discriminate as they see fit. As a non-Mormon, I am not permitted to even attend, much less participate in, a Mormon marriage ceremony. Our country allows this, because it gives private organizations and individuals the freedom to practice their beliefs. It should be this way… and it already is.

Speaking of the Mormons, they deserve special attention in this article. On June 29, 2008, the First Presidency of the Mormon Church released a letter calling on its 770,000 members located in California to give their full support and to donate as much money as they can within their means to the Prop 8 campaign.3 A complete list of Mormons who have donated $1,000 or more, with a running tally, can be found here. This is particularly sickening to me in that there are many people on this list whom I know personally. Mormons currently account for 31% of pro-Prop 8 donations, although that number is expected to rise dramatically as more data is collected.4 The Mormons’ opposition to gay marriage is quite ironic when you consider their history. They themselves have endured incredible persecution due to their own unorthodox views on marriage, i.e. their previous practice of polygamy. They were also much slower to react than the rest of the nation in treating blacks as equals. It took them until 1978 to give black males the same authorities that white males enjoyed.5 (Women still currently are given no authority at all.) Just because the mainstream Mormons no longer practice polygamy and now give blacks equal status, they would do well to remember their history.

One of the biggest problems I see here is that Christian groups are behaving as if marriage is a specifically religious contract, one they hold a monopoly on. Certainly religious ceremonies can be performed and beliefs held surrounding a marital contract, but the contract itself is secular in nature. The contract itself is from the U.S Government, which has an obligation to ensure equal rights and freedoms to all of its citizens. Not just Christian, white, male, or heterosexual citizens. All citizens.

I believe that in the years to come, future generations of Christians will look upon the issue of equal rights for homosexuals much the same way they view equal rights for blacks and women today. Let’s not wait another 40 years to treat everyone as equals. The most wonderful thing about the U.S. is people can believe whatever they want without persecution; our country was conceived on this principle. If you enjoy these rights and freedoms, it is your moral responsibility to apply them to all people, and that includes people who don’t believe the same things you do. Please, if you live in California, vote NO on Proposition 8. Let’s together set a precedent for basic human decency. VOTE NO ON PROP 8. 

UPDATE 1:

On Friday, October 17th, a group of Mormons who support gay marriage delivered protest letters, bundles of carnations, and a petition with over 400 signatures, to church headquarters in Salt Lake City. A church spokeswoman accepted the package as the more than 40 people making the delivery sang church hymns.6 The group, called Sign for Something, believes that “each individual should have the civil right to marry the spouse of their choice and to have that union recognized by civil authorities.”7 They also write that “The Constitution of the United States of America assures us that no person or group’s religious views are allowed to be binding on the public… We are dismayed at the dilemma of choosing between the voice of our conscience and the advice of our church’s leadership on this issue.” This group of brave members should be applauded for standing up for the Constitution, and for what they believe is right, in the face of so much adversity.

UPDATE 2:

This past Sunday, October 26th, a large group of people came out to protest Prop 8 in front of the Mormon temple in Oakland, CA.  You can read more about the event and see some great photos of protest signs here.  In other news, I’m thrilled to report that Prop 8 opponents have now taken the lead in fundraising!  As of late September, things were looking bleak for the anti-Prop 8 campaign, but the month of October has seen a ton of money pouring in, giving opponents of Prop 8 a strong advantage.  Hopefully it will see us through to the finish line!

UPDATE 3: (Cross-posted here)

According to the CivLib Blog, “By making the passage of California’s Proposition 8 a substantial part of its activities this year, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has violated nonprofit law. Because it has broken the law, it should be stripped of its 501(c)(3) non-profit tax-exempt status. This law will not be enforced unless complaints are filed against the LDS Church for its illegal activities.”  The blog lists all the individual documents required for filing a complaint, but our own JNTB has compiled all of these documents into one PDF for convenience. Per JNTB:

This document, IRS Form 13909 LDS.pdf, is the official form to submit to the IRS completed with the information offered by the CivLib.com blog. If you have Adobe Acrobat Reader 8 installed, it should allow you to open the PDF, add your own personal information (name/address/date of complaint) and then save the PDF to your own computer for use in an email later. If for some reason your version of Acrobat doesn’t allow the entering of info, just print, write it in, then scan back into an email to send to the IRS. Or, you can fax and snailmail, but beware …
This document, IRS Form 13909 LDS Supporting Documents.pdf, contains all the supporting documents (57 pages) that are required to file Form 13909 with the IRS. Email would be easier because faxing and snail-mailing can be annoying and costly. It’s up to you!

-Laura 

—–

Related StOP articles:

Regarding Roger Severino’s “Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Spark Lawsuits…”

Mormonism Unearthed:
Part I
Part II
Part III

  1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093002993.html [<]
  2. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/sepbutequal.htm [<]
  3. http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage [<]
  4. http://mormonsfor8.com/?p=108 [<]
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement [<]
  6. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7Ee9lkE23iWetMMU1Vy5nxReXCgD93SKREG0 [<]
  7. http://signingforsomething.org/blog/?page_id=2 [<]

More U.S. Anti-Contraception Coercion in Africa, Plus a Look Back on Bush’s Anti-Choice Legacy

Monday, October 6th, 2008

The Bush administration, in its last few months of power, hasn’t stopped its bulldozing of the concept of family planning. This past Thursday, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development admitted to telling six African governments to stop giving the Marie Stopes International family planning organization U.S.-donated contraceptives that the organization would have distributed to the African populations.1 This is a move that further endangers poor African women and girls. First, this is indicative of the Bush administration — not really a surprise. However, what is a surprise is that this issue is not something that has been brought up in the current campaign for the presidency. Perhaps a question relating to family planning and funding will be asked at the next debate. (I doubt it, though).

This is just one of many of the Bush agenda’s anti-privacy, anti-choice attacks. Upon the brink of Bush’s departure, we should remember his maniacal legacy.

Bush was the first and only president to sign legislation outlawing an abortion procedure.2
Bush was the first also to criminalize a medical procedure.
Although six federal courts ruled the Federal Abortion Ban to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court (in 2007, with two Bush appointees) ruled in favor of the ban.3

Bush signed the first federal law granting separate legal status to an embryo or fetus.4

Bush signed the Federal Refusal Clause, giving any health-care corporation permission to ignore any pro-choice law that ensures women have access to abortion services or referrals.5

Bush executed the Global gag rule,6 and then later expanded it.7

Bush has nominated three outspoken opponents of pro-choice to the Supreme Court (Miers, Roberts, and Alito).8

Bush made at least 73 nominations to the federal appeals courts, none of whom endorsed Roe v. Wade, though 19 were clearly anti-choice.9

Three executive branch nominations were anti-choice (John Ashcroft,10 Tommy Thompson,11 Michael Leavitt).12

Bush named at least 16 anti-choice activists to serve in various administration posts that oversee reproductive health (Sen. Tom Coburn, W. David Hager, Eric Keroack).13

Bush’s FDA took more than three years to approve emergency contraception for over-the-counter sales, although the agency’s own expert advisory panels voted 23-4 to recommend the move.14
The primary reason for the stall? A “minority report” written by none other than W. David Hager.15 Hager claimed that his report was “not written… from an “evangelical Christian perspective,” but from a scientific one.” And then went on to say, “”I argued from a scientific perspective, and God took that information, and he used it through this minority report to influence the decision. Once again, what Satan meant for evil, God turned into good.” 16

Eight Bush annual budgets have been anti-choice, cutting family planning program funds, promoting abstinence-only curricula, and extending discriminatory abortion restrictions.17

Bush has spoken at eight annual “March for Life18 events, and has issued seven annual proclamations designating the Sunday closest to the Roe anniversary as “National Sanctity of Human Life Day.”19

The Bush administration ended 30 years of federal funding for a public health conference hosted by the nonpartisan Global Health Council, specifically because organizations with pro-choice positions were among the conference’s participants.20

Bush’s UN delegations have sought anti-choice changes to international agreements, promoting censorship and medical misinformation, and attempting to propose that “life begins at conception.”21

Recommended Reading:

The Globalization of an Agenda: The Right Targets the U.N. with its Anti-Choice Politics, Pam Chamberlain, PublicEye.org. http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v20n1/chamberlain_globalization.html

Bush’s Other War (and related links), International Women’s Health Coalition. http://www.iwhc.org/resources/bushsotherwar/othernominations.cfm

Wikipedia: Fetal Rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights

Other Resources:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/bush-administration/
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/bush-administration/bushs-war-on-choice.html (Note that the general rundown of Bush’s legacy was taken mostly from this widely-distributed list, but the list was not footnoted and none of the assertions had citations or support. I personally researched and cited each assertion.)
http://msmagazine.com/news/news_results.asp?Body=appointment

  1. US cuts off family planning group in Africa, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/02/ap/preswho/main4496798.shtml and http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=116&sid=1490029 [<]
  2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031105-1.html [<]
  3. http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/04/court_rules_att.html [<]
  4. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html [<]
  5. http://msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?id=8647 [<]
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Policy [<]
  7. http://www.africa.upenn.edu/afrfocus/afrifocus112805.html [<]
  8. http://www.iwhc.org/resources/bushsotherwar/judicialnominations.cfm [<]
  9. http://www.iwhc.org/resources/bushsotherwar/judicialnominations.cfm [<]
  10. http://msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?id=4716 [<]
  11. http://msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?id=4718 [<]
  12. http://msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?id=10617 [<]
  13. http://www.iwhc.org/resources/bushsotherwar/othernominations.cfm [<]
  14. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082400559.html [<]
  15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hager [<]
  16. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/11/AR2005051101812.html [<]
  17. http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1189/context/archive and http://www.globalhealth.org/news/article/6923 [<]
  18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Life [<]
  19. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/15/bush.abortion/ [<]
  20. http://www.globalhealth.org/news/article/5830 and http://www.globalhealth.org/news/article/4450 [<]
  21. http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v20n1/chamberlain_globalization.html [<]

Metro Religious Discrimination Case Could Create Double Standard

Friday, October 3rd, 2008

Apparently, the U.S. Justice department, always on the lookout to protect the interests of the delusional, is suing the D.C. area Metro,1 alleging religious discrimination over the Metro’s policy of barring employees from altering their uniforms to comply with their religious beliefs.2

At the focus of the lawsuit is Gloria Jones, an Apostolic Pentecostal Christian, who was allegedly denied employment as a Metro bus driver in 2005 because according to her religious beliefs, she’s not allowed to wear pants. And pants are part of the required uniform for Metro bus drivers, and that’s something Metro apparently doesn’t feel the need to change. A few months ago, I wrote about Intolerable Tolerance in Britain, citing a case where a judge didn’t allow a Muslim attorney to practice specifically because the attorney insisted on wearing a traditional Muslim face covering that made it impossible for the attorney to be understood in the courtroom. I opined that it was the right decision to make — if you can’t do the job, you shouldn’t be doing the job. I can see some potential ways around that one (give the attorney a special microphone?), but it’s practically efficient, and it shouldn’t be up to the court to pander to religious quirks.

What interests me about this Metro case is that, although I don’t think the requirement for pants (over, say, a conservative skirt) is necessary in order for a Metro bus driver to do the job (I could be wrong — for all I know, there are a dozen safety reasons for not wearing a skirt, and that, in my mind, would be case dismissed), the ramifications of a decision in favor of such religious favoritism could be burdensome to the court in the future and could open the door for some really wacky claims that the court would not humor (and thus would, in ignoring such additional claims, be making two standards — one for Christians and probably Muslims, and one for non mainstream religions and beliefs). And that would be bad.

It’s similar to the situation I’d encounter if I insisted on giving a Satanic prayer at the start of the next Congressional session. Isn’t the Church of Satan a recognized religion?

If the court decides against Metro, how would it decide a case where a Buddhist monk insisted on wearing robes and being barefooted? What if a follower of Gaia insisted that her religion forbade her from wearing clothing above the waist? When we start sampling from the fringes of religiously diverse practices, we have the opportunity to compare and contrast those oddities with the rituals and practices that we’ve accepted as “normal” in society, and we hopefully realize that the normal practices are just as odd and should not be allowed as a free pass to deviate from the law (like what’s happening in Britain) or from workplace requirements that probably exist for a reason (safety, uniformity?).

Note that Metro is not government owned or operated, so there’s no whining about free speech or religious freedom. It’s a business, and business owners have the right to require uniform uniforms. Right? I mean, heck, the Supreme Court allowed the Boy Scouts to discriminate against homosexuals, and the Scouts get federal funding! 3 Apparently wrong. The case is based on the federal law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (so far, I haven’t seen which specific law Justice is using, but it’s likely one directly related to the Civil Rights Act, based on organizations that are at least partially federally funded, which I believe Metro is). However, I still think the Boy Scouts case creates a precedent that might be useful, depending on how far this case gets.

My take? If I were Metro, I’d say that I’m not discriminating based on religion, I’m discriminating based on FRIGGIN PANTS! Sheesh. Metro isn’t prohibiting the lady from believing in something. Metro isn’t trying to shove secularism or another religion down this lady’s throat. Metro isn’t punishing the lady (like paying her differently (if they had hired her) because of her religious preference). We, as a society governed by laws, must ensure those laws are not misused and abused. The Justice Department should have not taken up this case. It’s going to cost Metro money (which will cost thousands of regular Metro riders and taxpayers money), and it’s not going to solve any actual problems.

Imagine other federally funded occupations where skirt-wearing would be so utterly insane, that the mere thought of trying to bring a case on behalf of some religious nut would warrant a lengthy asylum stay for the Justice attorney. Astronaut sues NASA for not allowing her to wear a no-pants skirt space suit. Government-employed MRI tester insists that religion forbids removal of crucifix necklace, despite medical safety regulations and danger of decapitation. School teacher insists on having stoning parties when a child breaks a Commandment — because that’s what Abraham would do. Oh, and again, school teachers insisting on having the right to teach Creationism in school — preventing them from doing so would be religious discrimination!

One more: According to Sikhism, men’s hair4is a gift from God, not to be cut. This tenet is the most important of all the Sikh requirements. To cut hair is to offend God.5 If a Sikh joined the U.S. military, but refused to have his hair shaved (like the military does to all male recruits), would the U.S. Justice Department sue the U.S. military on behalf of the Sikh?

Where do we draw the line? I say: at the door. Specifically for government-funded organizations or any private entity that wants to draw a line. You don’t have to stop believing at the door, but you shouldn’t be able to insist on doing things your way if your way infringes upon others and is being paid for by the taxpayers.

StOP

  1. That’d be the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, at http://www.wmata.com/ [<]
  2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100201740.html?nav=rss_metro [<]
  3. See Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZO.html [<]
  4. Kesh, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesh_(Sikhism) [<]
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism#Baptism_and_the_Khalsa [<]