Posts Tagged ‘establishment’

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Whine About It

Monday, June 8th, 2009

Says the Supreme Court.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which prohibits gays and lesbians1 from serving in the U.S. military.

Thank God. I was really beginning to worry that the military was going to start redecorating foreign nations instead of slaughtering their denizens. Now I feel much more secure knowing that our borders are being protected by real men and nearly real women.2

No, no. Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t have a problem with “our troops.” I’m not an anti-patriot. I am a former Marine, remember? I have the utmost respect for the military establishment as it stands to protect my rights. However, I don’t respect the people who run it. Nor do I respect Commanders in Chief who wuss out at a great opportunity to eliminate this absolutely atrocious, discriminatory, and often fatally harmful policy that, among other antiquated and puritan laws, segregates and by definition punishes people for even the hint of being unlike the religiously accepted “norm.” The policy is brutal. It tells the world that we don’t respect homosexuals. That even though we humor them with regard to their fashion sense, their music, and, in some states, their desire to acquire officially recognized relationships, we don’t trust them with a rifle in a uniform. What the fuck?

When I was 17, I got myself emancipated after I graduated high school so that I could join the Marines. Something struck me as rather silly. When I marched across the parade deck at graduation, a full-fledged United States Marine, I was still 17. I wasn’t even the age of majority. I couldn’t buy a beer in 99% of the U.S. I couldn’t buy a pistol. I even doubted my ability to vote (it’s still 18, right?). Yet, my government gave me a loaded rifle and said, “Go fight for your nation.” And I did, proudly. But what kind of principles has a nation got that it would send its children into war, yet restrict them from drinking a beer? Heck, I could have seen bloody slaughter in combat and yet I wouldn’t have been allowed in a theater to see an NC-17 movie.

What I’m trying to say here on what might seem a tangent is that this nation’s puritan ideology is hampering our ability to think and act reasonably and rationally as a nation. It’s embarrassing, cruel, and pointless, and we need to quit it. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is just another in a series of such idiocy.

  1. Honestly, what’s the difference between a gay and a lesbian? [<]
  2. They’re still not allowed to go into combat, you know. [<]

Police Hunt for Boy Fleeing Diet and Exercise

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

Forces nationwide on alert for mom, son who are on the run.
obese
(Image is ubiquitous, represents but does not depict child in question)

Health and faith clashed in the courtroom, with police on the lookout for a Minnesota mother who fled with her obese 13-year-old son rather than consent to a diet and exercise program.

A court-ordered BMI examination on Monday showed that Danny Hoosier is severely obese, with a score of 43, and that he would likely die from the symptoms of obesity if he did not receive physical and diet therapy.

Before she fled, Caileen Hoosier, a Roman Catholic, told a judge that she wished to treat her son’s obesity with spiritual healing methods advocated by an American Spaniard religious group known as the Nameless Band.

Danny has severe childhood obesity, a highly curable form of obesity when treated with a regimen of diet and exercise. But the teen and his parents rejected the regimen after a single workout session followed by having to eat broccoli. The boy’s mother said that exercise and putting healthy substances in the body violates the family’s religious convictions.

Authorities are alerting the public to report the mother and son’s whereabouts, if seen, and that they have frequently been sighted at McDonald’s drive-thrus. 1

Seems silly, no matter how you look at it, eh?2

Isn’t this mother’s action equivalent to post-partum abortion, or should parents be allowed to “care for” their children in whatever manner they feel appropriate? What do the Libertarians say about this?

In addition, isn’t it curious how it seems that religion gets a free pass in many aspects of law and society (e.g., tax breaks, requiring monotheistic belief for public office, hate crimes based on religion, general inability to criticize religion, lighter sentences), but when society doesn’t agree with someone’s specific actions, it condemns those actions, even if they were motivated by sincere religious conviction?

Broken down, here’s what it means: Religion does not give you a free pass. Accepted religion does. That means someone’s dancing a jig on the grave marked “R.I.P. First Amendment.”

Speaking of the First Amendment, does this case threaten to violate it in the reverse respect? In other words, by not allowing someone to practice their religion as they see fit (no matter how kooky we perceive it), isn’t that “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? Heck, perhaps the First Amendment does need an overhaul. It obviously doesn’t take into account all the wacky religions out there, and all the wacky people who do crazy things in the name of their religion. What the Supreme Court and others say is, “Oh, the founders didn’t mean absolutely no prohibitions! There has to be some reasonable guideline to keep the kooks from doing really crazy stuff.” Hmm, I wonder who establishes those guidelines. Could it be… mainstream Christians?

Either we need to eliminate reading between the First Amendment’s lines, risking religious justification for all sorts of heinous acts, or we need to eliminate religion as a justification for any action. In other words, if an act is harmful, it’s harmful. If it’s not, it’s not. Religious conviction should not be able to adjust that fact.

UPDATE:

Believe it or not, my satire has manifested in reality.

From CNN:
Authorities arrest mom for medical neglect of 555-pound teen

South Carolina authorities have located a 555-pound teenager and his mother, who faces a charge of violating a custody order, police said Thursday.

obese-reality
Alexander Deundray Draper, 14, “is possibly at a stage of critical health risk,” social services said.

Alexander Deundray Draper, 14, of Travelers Rest, South Carolina, and his mother, Jerri Althea Gray, were located at about 4:30 p.m. near a laundromat in Baltimore, Maryland, by the Baltimore County Sheriff’s Office, said Matt Armstrong, a spokesman for the Greenville County Sheriff’s Office in Greenville, South Carolina.

“The understanding was that the individual was of the weight where it was decided by medical authorities that he needed treatment that was not being provided for by his mother,” Armstrong said.

Earlier in the day officials said the boy “is possibly at a stage of critical health risk.”

Gray was supposed to appear in family court Tuesday with her son and failed to do so, the sheriff’s office said. During the family court hearing, the boy was ordered into state custody because of medical neglect, as well as his mother’s failure to appear. The Department of Social Services then contacted the sheriff’s office, authorities said.

The warrant said Gray was served with papers Monday and told to report to court for a hearing in which the department would seek state custody of Draper. “The defendant has avoided the custody proceeding and has concealed the child,” the warrant says.

Wow. Or is this more satire? How can anyone be sure?

  1. Yes, this is satire. Yes, I have to say it. The real subjects of this insanity are Colleen and Daniel Hauser. Daniel has Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a highly curable form of cancer when treated with chemo and radiation. His parents did, in fact, reject chemo after only a single treatment, and now mother and son are on the run, and the court has issued an arrest warrant for her arrest. [<]
  2. Note that my perhaps even more subtle satire here deals with the fact that in the real case, the mother said that putting toxic substances in the body violates the family’s religious convictions. When I read the story, I wondered how much fast food the kid had eaten (and how much more he’ll be eating on the run). We’re constantly putting toxic substances in our bodies. Quite a bit of it is natural. What the mother really meant to say is that under circumstances of her choosing, she’ll allow her god to kill her child, because that’s what Jesus would do. Or Abraham. Or someone ancient. She shouldn’t interfere. Funny how she still manages to find a way to ingest food. You know, if God wanted her to survive, she wouldn’t have to eat food at all, or take any action whatsoever to preserve her own life. Fucking hypocrite. [<]

James Corbett Speaks at The Legal Satyricon

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

The Legal Satyricon (one of my favorite and engaging legal blogs) was fortunate enough to host recently sued California teacher James Corbett’s compelling editorial regarding the lawsuit one of his students brought against him for Corbett’s in-class, out of context statement that “creation is superstitious nonsense.” The suit was based on the theory that Corbett violated the Establishment clause, but Corbett ominously suggests that victories in such frivolous lawsuits would lead to chilling of teacher speech:

Every teacher in California (this was a federal case after all) now works with the knowledge that any student, at any time, and in violation of California law, can sneak a tape recorder into a classroom, record the teacher and use an out-of-context five second comment as a bludgeon to threaten, to intimidate and, ultimately, to destroy the teacher’s career and good name.

Read The Legal Satyricon’s synopsis of the case, and then read Mr. Corbett’s outstanding editorial, which I think I will print out and have framed.

WARNING: You May be Part of an Unholy Alliance!

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

On February 5, President Obama held the traditional (at least since the Great Depression) National Prayer Breakfast in DC to clarify issues about his take on the faith-based initiative, and to laud the benefits of faith. Despite the fact that President Obama created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships made up of both secular and religious components, and despite his suggestion that the separation of church and state is a good thing that needs to be perpetuated, the Prayer Breakfast set an unsurprising, although perhaps subtle, non-rational tone.

For instance,

He said even though a diverse group of faith leaders and lawmakers read different religious texts and follow different traditions, one law unites them all — “the Golden Rule” — the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.”1

Implying simultaneously that faith is acceptable as a source of guidance, but is not the foundation of morality, which brings into question the purpose of focusing on faith as a benefit rather than merely focusing on benefit. (In other words, why not laud, in general, those people who help others, rather than trying to establish that there’s something inherently good about faith itself?)

More disturbing, and fringing on an attack against non-believers, a guest speaker at the Prayer, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, stated that “The extreme believers and aggressive nonbelievers come together in an unholy alliance.” Funny, I don’t recall, by the nature of my aggressive nonbelief joining up with suicide bombers and bible-thumping clinic bombers. Non-belief is non-belief. It’s the lack of something, whereas belief is the addition of something, and extreme belief is the extreme addition of something. How can one have an extreme absence of something? It’s like trying to multiply by zero.

But, am I even remotely satisfied that Obama has taken Bush’s outlandish and non-working faith-based extremism and molded it, through compromise, into something that somehow includes non-believers with an overall goal of improving the lives of others? No. I can’t say that I am satisfied at all. I think every moment that Obama takes to focus on faith itself as a benefit is a moment that he tramples upon his own assertion that there exists and should be maintained a separation of church and state. Obama even recognizes that not all faith-based actions are beneficial, and excludes the extremists and the self-righteous, but he still can’t bring himself to the logical conclusion that if instead of focusing on “faith” as a factor, we focused on actual benefit as a factor, we could accomplish the same goals without risking establishment and without isolating those who would bring benefit to others without unsupported belief in the supernatural. Is this just another political maneuver to keep the religious groups from rioting, or is this Obama continuing to show his religious favoritism?

Regardless, President Obama isolates religion from scriptural fact when he says that “No matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate…. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.” He might actually be correct with regard to religion, but he’s certainly way off the mark with regard to God, depending on which god is the subject, and depending on one’s definition of “innocent.” Did Obama skip his bible lesson where the God of the Old Testament laid waste to millions of people, or does Obama consider them all to have been guilty in the eyes of the Lord, and thus not innocent? Either answer indicates that Obama is either fabricating a reality that doesn’t match what the good books say, or he truly believes that God’s word is the higher law. If the former, should we worry about his ability to read and comprehend? If the latter, is he not advocating the combination of church and state while alleging that he supports separation? Remember, he thinks having faith in such a deity is a good thing.

By the way, there will be an Unholy Alliance meeting at the Elk’s Lodge on Main Street this Sunday. Coffee, donuts, and pitchforks will be served.


Carnival of the Godless #110 at The Greenbelt

Carnival of the Godless entry at The Greenbelt

State of Unholy Protest

  1. Washington Times [<]

To Sue or Not to Sue… The President

Monday, December 29th, 2008

Camps are forming among the irreligious, based on Michael Newdow’s most recent attempt to break up the government-religious relationship — he’s suing President-elect Obama. Well, not directly, but effectively, through his lawsuit against the use of the term “So help me God” and inaugural prayer. Newdow and others claim that Obama and related officials should leave behind all semblance of religion when ascending the platform that will officially designate Obama as the next President of the United States.

Friendly Atheist is one prominent member of the camp that supports such a notion. He states:

There’s no reason Barack Obama should be swearing an oath to God when he takes office. (If he chooses to do so personally, that’s his decision, but it shouldn’t be part of the official ceremony.) There’s also no reason we should have prayers — in this case, Christian ones — at the inauguration.

Although Friendly Atheist believes that the lawsuit stands about the same chance as Newdow’s failed 2004 lawsuit of the same calibre, he thinks that the upside to such litigiousness is that it brings attention to the secular versus religious issue with regard to government.

On the other side of the aisle is Atheist Ethicist, arguing that because this is an issue of freedom of speech, it should not be fought with violence, but, instead, with speech. Violence, he says, because the court enforces its decisions with the force of the government (i.e., police), in the form of intimidation and sometimes actual force. The proper way to act in retaliation of the decision to meld the pulpit and the presidency is to condemn and criticize, but not prohibit the speech of others, particularly the president’s. Essentially, if we act through the courts to stifle the president’s ability to say a prayer or swear to God, then we make a mockery of our own arguments to protect our own right to not pray or swear to God.

Both arguments have valid points. It’s a good idea to bring to America’s attention that we haven’t always been a “Christian” nation, and that, as Friendly Atheist notes, our allusions to the biblical God were all fabricated and implemented fairly late in U.S. history. And it’s also proper for us to enforce the notion that government is supposed to be separate from religion, at least with regard to endorsement. On the other hand, it’s potentially risky to establish a precedent that we wouldn’t want applied to ourselves or to others, regardless of their belief.

I’ll add something to this. Obama won’t be passing any laws during the inauguration. The First Amendment protects us from Congress passing law respecting an establishment of religion. It’s got nothing to say about the president being sworn in by the Chief Justice, or about an invocation, or if the president-elect wants to wear a turban or a cross or a clown suit.

So, which argument is stronger? The one supporting the lawsuit or the one opposing it? Is there a limit to which rational people should go in pursuit of separation of church and state, and is this the limit?

-Procrustes

State of Protest