Tuesday, April 21st, 2009
All 50 states have laws banning animal cruelty and dogfighting. In 1999, the federal government passed a controversial law banning the sale of images of animal cruelty, such as video of dogfighting or “crush” videos depicting women crushing to death small animals. The law acts as an exception to the free speech protections of the First Amendment. Although a federal appeals court in Philadelphia indicated that preventing animal cruelty is a worthy goal, the court held that banning the sale of videos showing animal cruelty illegally restricts speech, in violation of the First Amendment. The case is U.S. v. Stevens (08-769). For more information, see Supreme Court to consider whether ban on pit bull videos violates free-speech rights.
The Supreme Court declined to review a challenge to the constitutionality of a jury verdict in a death penalty case. The jury had consulted a Bible during deliberations to help decide on a sentence. The case was Oliver v. Quarterman (08-833). More information about this and other cases regarding a jury’s use of a bible can be found at the following links: Ninth Circuit OKs jury’s use of the Bible in death penalty deliberations; Jurors consulting the Bible; Supreme Court won’t disturb death sentence in case of Texas jurors who had Bible with them.
Also see the Supreme Court Blog for more details about those and other cases.
[Ed's Note: I'll be doing regular Supreme Court Review posts, but they'll be limited to the topics that interest me (which are generally those regarding free speech, privacy rights, religion, etc.). I'll also be on the lookout for prominent federal and state cases.]
Tags: Amendment, animal, ban, banning, bible, Constitution, death, First Amendment, free speech, Government, Law, legal, rights
Posted in Supreme Court | 9 Comments »
Thursday, March 26th, 2009
Which means seven of the Board members need an infusion of reason, but I’m sure they had their good reasons.
Excerpt from TFN Insider’s liveblogging of the debate:
9:17 – The Texas State Board of Education meeting has begun, and we have some encouraging news. Dallas member Mavis Knight, a strong supporter of sound science standards, is participating by videoconference. It appears that Mary Helen Berlanga from Corpus Christi is not present, but no motion can pass on a 7-7 tie. So if all votes hold from January, the pro-science board members should be able to block bad amendments today. (We said “if” and “should be able.”)
…
11:13 – Mr. Mercer’s motion fails 7-7!!!
11;15 – This is huge victory for sound science education in Texas. Moreover, the creationists’ opposition to Mr. Craig’s motion exposed their hypocrisy about wanting to ensure that students can ask questions about science.
Gee, I hope this means that Texas students will be able to ask questions in classrooms without feeling bad about their delusions.
Tags: Amendment, Christ, creationist, hypocrisy, Science, vote
Posted in Government, Science | 1 Comment »
Friday, February 27th, 2009
What kinda stupid stuff has the government been doing lately? Let’s find out on February Friday Fun.
First, we start off with the imbecilic local government in Clearwater, Florida, who first fined a store owner for having upon his store wall an image of a fish of the type that he sold in the store (violating a code against store owners having on display a depiction of something the store sells — uhm, that makes sense), and then was fined yet again for him covering it up with a naked picture of his wife! No, just kidding. Actually, he was fined again for covering it up with the U.S. Constitution. According to the St. Petersburg Times, the ACLU is suing the city of Clearwater, alleging that it has violated the shopkeeper’s First Amendment rights. Pshaw. What First Amendment?

Next, Vjack asserts that a qualified apology (a non-apology apology) isn’t really an apology, especially with respect to the kind of public apology that seems expected from those responsible for what is being claimed to be a racist cartoon. Although Vjack has his points (when doesn’t he?), the most interesting part of his article is the comments, which lean toward suggesting that an apology isn’t necessary at all. Particularly in cases where either the meaning is misunderstood, or if the would-be apologizer meant to do whatever it was that caused offense. I agree with Vjack that people should take responsibility for their actions, but I also don’t think that people should apologize for something non-existent caused by a misunderstanding, when there was no intent to do harm. But I mean that as a general principle — no “default” knee-jerk apologies; that doesn’t mean there aren’t cases where it’s in everyone’s best interest for someone to make a real, formal apology. Unfortunately, though, in this world, an apology, even when there’s no actual harm or intent to harm, is often perceived as pleading guilty, and it’s possible that the idea behind not giving a “real” apology is really just a way of saying, “Look, this isn’t what you think it is, and if I apologize for it, you’ll think you were justified in thinking it was what you think it is.” Apologies shouldn’t be evidentiary (except maybe while being interrogated by police), but they are.
This burns. Jesse at Rant & Reason brings to light the fact that a sole Colorado legislator voted against a bill that would require HIV tests for pregnant women (to ensure the health of the foetus/baby), specifically because HIV “stems from sexual promiscuity” and that he didn’t want to “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.” What a crock! Read the article if you want to be further disgusted by the inhumanity of some of the idiots we elect to represent our interests.
As I re-Tweeted on Twitter the other day, Christopher Hitchens was on Lou Dobbs (no, not like that!), and I’ll let PZ Myers at Pharyngula give the rundown, because I’ve had a shitty week. The issue is the UN’s proposed resolution banning blasphemy. (It’d make it a crime in the U.S. to criticize religion (specifically Islam). WTF!). Fuck Islam. Fuck Mohammed, Muhammed, Muhammad, Mohinder, whomever. Where was that First Amendment again? Oh, that’s right, we don’t have one. Fifty-fucking-seven nations supporting this!?!? If it passes, the U.S. should leave the UN. “Universal human rights exist whether religion recognizes them or not,” says Hitchens. Woot.
Oh, hey, remember when I said that there’s no First Amendment? I meant that we civilians, we “people” don’t have First Amendment rights. Apparently, though, government entities do. WTF? According to The Legal Satyricon, the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously held “that a city’s government has a right to decide which donated monuments to display on municipal property.”
Americans United for Separation of Church and State suggests dropping prayers and invocations at political rallies. “The only thing worse than having these prayers in the first place is to have them vetted, because it entangles the White House in core theological matters.”
And that’s it for this first and last edition of February Friday Fun, which is just some name I made up just now, because “Daily Dose” was just too alliterative for me.
Tags: ACLU, Amendment, America, atheist, ban, banning, blasphemy, cartoon, Christ, church, Colorado, Constitution, criminal, First Amendment, Florida, fuck, Government, Hamm, Hitchens, human, humanist, humanity, Invocation, islam, legal, Logic, Mohammed, Muhammed, Petersburg, police, political, prayer, Religion, rights, Science, sex, stimulus, theist, vote, war
Posted in Government, Religion | No Comments »
Tuesday, February 10th, 2009
Book Review- Monkey Girl, by Edward Humes
Book review by L.Grey, with permission.
In the time of Galileo it was argued that the texts, ‘And the sun stood still … and hasted not to go down about a whole day’ (Joshua x. 13) and ‘He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not move at any time’ (Psalm cv. 5) were an adequate refutation of the Copernican theory.
Alan Turing, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Mind 59 (1950), 443.

Monkey Girl by Edward Humes ISBN: 9780060885489, ISBN10: 0060885483 Ecco (imprint of Harper Collins) Hardcover 400 pages, $25.95
What does it mean when proponents of Intelligent Design say “teach the controversy”?
You may think you know what the controversy is about, but you’ll never get a more thorough and up-to-date analysis of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial than Edward Humes’ book Monkey Girl. The 2005 trial was one of the latest episodes of the seemingly never-ending struggle for the hearts and minds of public school students. This is a fight between those who feel that Science describes nature pretty well, and those who believe that anything other than a strict literal interpretation of the Bible deserves a trip to hell and excommunication from polite society. The trial itself was a gripping account of small-town drama unfolding over the course of a year, of parents and children enduring intimidation and humiliation. Witnesses from both sides turned the courtroom into a fascinating arena of scientific evidence versus faith dressed in science’s clothing. At least three books have come out of the case (see further reading below for details), and Ed Humes’ Pulitzer Prize-winning writing style and even-handed coverage make Monkey Girl a compelling choice. Humes not only covers the case, he describes the town as the trial transforms it:
Dover sits firmly astride the front lines of America’s culture war, occupying the uneasy space between America’s religious faith and its longstanding fondness for scientific progress, between an idealized past and an uncertain future, between education and indoctrination, between the natural and the supernatural. For the next several months, the ninth floor courtroom in the Ronald Reagan Federal Building will belong to Kitzmiller et al versus Dover Area School District, an unintentionally epic lawsuit filed by a group of parents against their evolution-doubting school board. The case does indeed have much in common with the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial, a public spectacle in which Clarence Darrow and the American Civil Liberties Union unsuccessfully challenged a Tennessee law banning the teaching of evolution. But unlike its illustrious predecessor (which, popular imagination and classic films notwithstanding, had exactly no impact on the law or educational practice at the time), the Dover case is positioned to define (or redefine) for decades just what children are taught about where we come from. [prologue, Monkey Girl]
The controversy has shifted a bit since the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, which first questioned the legality of teaching Darwin’s theory of Evolution in public schools. World War II and the Cold War demanded that the United States produce competent scientists. This demand seemed to effectively muzzle fundamentalists for a few decades. High School Biology classes approaching the Theory of Evolution would often involve an uneasy truce involving the words “changes over time” and neatly sidestepping the origins of life. Until reading this book, I assumed that all but the most extreme religious fundamentalists were fine with this truce. Humes’ book shows precisely how much this has changed.
While the book mostly focuses on the Dover trial, Humes also takes us to a similar trial in Kansas, the controversy involving the gift shop at the Grand Canyon, where Creationists have had some success in censoring information about the geological age of the national monument. Most importantly, Humes follows the trail of intellectual and legal deception to the pseudo-scientific think-tank called The Discovery Institute, a group of scientists who exclude any scientific evidence in conflict with Christian Scripture.
The Dover Trial is full of drama and bad debate, A Scopes Monkey Trial for the 21st century, or Inherit the Wind, Redux. Humes shows in the Dover case how Creationism in public schools, having been defeated in courts during the late 20th century under the Separation of Church and State clause of the First Amendment, evolved (pun intended) into the virtually identical Intelligent Design movement, to Dover, Pennsylvania among other places. Some of the most shocking moments of the trial feature the ironic displays of dishonesty which ultimately brought down the school board members who were trying to bring religion into the local biology classrooms. Humes covers the scope of the grand scheme of religious activists, who plan on infusing not only science classes with Christian dogma and bias, but History, Government, and other classes as well.
This very book elicits criticism from those whose definition of “Fair and Balanced” have been warped to Orwellian proportions by Fox News and today’s most hyperbolic propagandists. Humes compassionately portrays how the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs in this case, were attacked and their children mocked at school out of ignorance. The Dover case pitted one kind of Christians against another. Those who favored the separation of Church and State were attacked as “not Christian enough”, in a great example of how the separation of these two functions protects freedom of religion. Another surprising turn of events showed how the presiding judge, a Bush-supporting Republican was branded as a liberal judicial activist for defending the constitution.
While it is clear on which side Humes’ sympathies lie, the reader is necessarily confronted with the heart of the so-called controversy: regarding extreme religious views which by definition do not tolerate any opposing views, what are the limits of tolerance in society? How can a democracy defend pluralism from those whose religious beliefs clash so vehemently with the definition of reality itself by the rest of the world, both secular and religious? The Framers of the Constitution were historically not far away from centuries of religious wars in Europe which constantly threw governments into turmoil. They saw the value of the separation of church and state to both church and state. Back in those days religious persecution meant death or incarceration because of one’s beliefs, not what passes for persecution these days in the minds of some.
One gets the strong impression reading Humes’ insightful analysis, that this latest version of the old Darwin-vs.-God controversy is the product of the removal of Critical Thinking skills from the mainstream public school curriculum, and the lack of a Cold War Era push towards developments in Math & Science, supported by all but the most outspoken of Bible literalists, who constantly attempt to couch the debate as “God vs. Darwin”, when in fact, most religions don’t require people to choose between the two. In my opinion, this is a clear case of the old adage, “Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”. Young-Earth Creationists might benefit from not ignoring the history of the Catholic Church’s censorship of Copernicus and Galileo hundreds of years ago, and ask themselves why the Pope doesn’t have a big problem with Darwin’s theories today.
-Philadelphic
Further reading on the Dover Trial: (after the break…)
(more…)
Tags: activists, Amendment, America, ban, banning, belief, bible, bio, biology, Bush, California, Canyon, Casey, Catholic, censor, censorship, children, Christ, church, Civil liberties, Columbia, Constitution, Copernican, Copernicus, Cornel, Cornelius, creationism, creationist, Darwin, death, Democracy, discovery, dogma, Dover, Dover trial, Enterprise, Europe, Evolution, faith, First Amendment, foundation, freedom, fundamental, Galileo, god, Government, history, Hume, Kansas, Kitzmiller, Law, lawsuit, legal, liberal, Logic, Matthew, monkey, movie, Orwell, Oxford, pagan, Pennsylvania, political, Pope, Psalm, Pulitzer, Reagan, Religion, republican, Review, school, school board, Science, Scopes, scripture, secular, Tennessee, theory, tolerance, United States, war
Posted in Review | 1 Comment »
Friday, January 23rd, 2009
What the fuck is profanity, and why do elected officials keep pushing to have “it” banned? Same officials, no doubt, that push for the banning of various books they don’t like, as well.
BoingBoing brought to my attention the newest farce: South Carolina state Senator (and fucking coward) Robert Ford tries to pass a law there to outlaw profanity. Unknown what he means by profanity, but I’m sure it will come down either to a list of the top seven or so words, or some subjective standard passed off to resemble a generally objective standard, like “reasonably interpreted to be offensive or perverse.” Up to five years in jail or fines up to $5,000 for a mere utterance, because, apparently “…the First Amendment is not absolute… You cannot say whatever you want whenever you want to.”
I call him coward because he’s afraid of words. By fearing words, those words become empowered. Many used to fear the word “damn” because it was thought to be the curse prohibited in the bible (yes, most of this puritan bullshit has origins in religious scripture — surprise!), and supposedly before that, the mere use of the word “God” (as in “God damn”) was considered the curse (using God’s name in vain). Look through television history. I remember a time where “God damn” wasn’t bleeped. Then they bleeped only “damn.” Now they bleep only “God.” I wonder how many innocent souls were forever psychologically scarred (and damned to eternal hell) by our obvious mis-bleeping early on.
On a similar note, Greta Christina asks why our society and world is obsessed with putting restrictions on various manifestations of sexuality. I personally think it’s because the shitheads who come up with such restrictions are closeted homosexuals, BDSMs, pedophiles, or are just plain sexless. And they carry that down generation to generation by claiming that their God watches all the perverted little things they do, and the threat of hell is just too much for them. Moreso, though, it follows the tradition of religious hypocrisy and totalitarianism. It’s just a very effective way to control others through fear and intimidation. We really need to purge our world of this.
(Love you, Greta!)

Tags: Amendment, ban, banning, bible, BoingBoing, bullshit, cow, First Amendment, fuck, god, history, Law, Logic, puritan, scripture, Senator, television, war
Posted in Government, Religion | 7 Comments »