Members of the Muslim Brotherhood at Ain Shams University were at the heart of the protest. It is distressing to see academics participating in such an attack on free expression and the literary arts.

In the wake of the “Arab Spring,” there is a cold wind blowing across countries like Egypt where Islamic parties have used their new freedom to deny the rights of others. As is often the case, artists and journalists are the first to be targeted for their free speech and art. Recently, famed Egyptian actor, Adel Imam, was sentenced to three months in jail for “defaming Islam” in several roles on stage and screen.

Citizens in Egypt can expect more of the same (and less of free speech): the Muslim Brotherhood is demanding the right to form the next government after sweeping election victories.

Source: Egypt Independent

You are probably thinking the tweet must be pretty darn bad to fit serious blasphemy into 140 characters or less. Yet, Kashgari is being charged over a fake conversation that he had with Mohammad, who is not even listed as one of his “followers” on Twitter. Kashgari (who has apologized) wrote “On your birthday I find you in front of me wherever I go. I love many things about you and hate others, and there are many things about you I don’t understand.” As also tweeted “No Saudi women will go to hell, because it’s impossible to go there twice.”

The faithful even created a festive Facebook page with nearly 10,000 members dedicated to executing the journalist — declaring “The Saudi people demand Hamza Kashgari’s execution” already has nearly 10,000 members.

The committee of top clerics confirmed that these people are only doing what is right and told Saudis that “Muslim scholars everywhere have agreed that those who insult Allah and his prophet or the (Muslim holy book) Koran or anything in religion are infidels and apostates.” They called on him to be “judge[d] based on sharia law,” which demands death for those who insult Mohammad or the religion.

Other clerics repeated prior warnings that good Muslims do not Tweet. Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh announced that Twitter is “a great danger not suitable for Muslims… it is a platform for spreading lies and making accusations.”

Once again, these stories show the perils of the effort of the Obama Administration to establish standards for the criminalization of anti-religious speech with Muslim countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Source: Washington Post

The ruling can now be appealed to the Supreme Court, but it is likely to be first appealed to the full en banc court of appeals.

The three-judge panel is composed of Reinhardt, an appointee of former President Carter; Michael Daly Hawkins, an appointee of former President Clinton; and N. Randy Smith, appointed by former President George W. Bush. During oral argument, the questions appeared to favor those challenging Proposition 8. The panel, however, did raise procedural concerns.

Walker’s status as a gay man in a same-sex relationship became part of the appeal with Proposition 8 backers arguing that he had a potential conflict-of-interest. They insist that he did not properly reveal his relationship before declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional in August 2010. On April 6, 2011, Walker disclosed that he is gay and has been in a relationship with a male doctor for about ten years.

The panel held “Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

The court notably found standing for the parties to sue — a major question in the case. Even in his partial dissent, Smith still agrees with the majority that the parties had standing and that the motion to vacate should be denied. However, he believes the law satisfied the rational basis test and should have been upheld.

I expect an en banc challenge in the case, particularly with a divided panel decision.

Both opinions are well-reasoned, though I agree with the majority. Reinhardt is viewed as one of the most liberal judges in the country and he seems an attractive foil for some of the conservative justices. Many have said that in the past these justices appeared to be gunning for the Ninth Circuit and particularly Reinhardt. Justices like Scalia are likely to favor cert in the case. However, it is to the advantage of the challengers to try their hand at the en banc first. There is always the danger that one of the four most reliable conservative justices might not want to take the risk of granting cert. As it stands, this is precedent controlling only in the Ninth Circuit.

The matter could not be more central to a nation built on both the rule of law and pluralistic values. If discriminatory views are enough to satisfy the rational basis test, a host of insular minorities would face majoritarian harassment and abuse. Quoting an earlier Supreme Court ruling in Moreno, the court ruled that “[j]ust as a ‘desire to harm . . . cannot While race and religion trigger strict scrutiny, sexual preference is not treated as a suspect classification for the purposes of the constitute a legitimate governmental interest,’ . . . neither can a more basic disapproval of a class of people.”

Here is the opinion: Prop 8 ruling

Source: LA Times

In an interview with the ABC affiliate in Harrisburg, McFadden was objecting to the lack of school vouchers in Pennsylvania and the lack of choice for many parents: “In the totalitarian government, they would love our system,” McFadden said. “This is what Hitler and Mussolini and all them tried to establish — a monolith; so all the children would be educated in one set of beliefs and one way of doing things.” The Anti-Defamation League has condemned the statement and said “he should not be making his point at the expense of the memory of six million Jews and millions of others who perished in the Holocaust.”

I understand the sensitivity to such a comparison, but I do not think that the Bishop was referring to the Holocaust. People should be able to make comparisons to aspects of prior totalitarian regimes without fear of being call insensitive to the Holocaust. The Nazi regime was a worldwide tragedy with many aspects and precursors that are the subject of historical and political discourse.

Where McFadden is wrong is that the comparison is wildly misplaced. First, Hitler was raised by a devout Catholic mother and many Nazis were taught in religious schools. Indeed, the Vatican was criticized by some for not doing more to confront the Nazi regime. Second, the fascists sought to use schools to indoctrinate children to accept narrow values to the exclusion of other values and the objectification of other people. American public schools do the opposite. They are motivated by pluralistic principles to help shape citizens who are tolerant and well-rounded. They are the antithesis of what fascists want from education.

Finally, this is about vouchers and whether the people of Pennsylvania should subsidize alternative schools, such as Catholic schools. With the church experiencing severe shortfalls in attendance and donations, they need more from the state more than ever. However, there are very good reasons for opposition to vouchers. I attended Catholic schools for part of my earlier education and I am very thankful for the education that I received in those schools. However, Leslie and I are committed to the model of public education. While we can afford a private education, we have kept our children in public schools where they are taught in a more diverse class. I have long been an advocate for public education, particularly in the elementary and middle school levels, as a critical part of shaping good citizens. While I have often been critical of the curriculum particularly on civics, I believe that the public schools have always been the key to maintaining a citizenry that is educated and tolerant.

The comparison to Hitler and Mussolini reflects less disrespect on the part of Bishop McFadden than it does a lack of understanding of the fascistic agenda on education: dogma and exclusionary learning. While I believe Catholic schools are excellent choices for learning, it is outrageous to compare fascistic systems to our public schools. Hitler and Mussolini would find our current curriculum in public schools to be a threat to their type of indoctrination model for children.

Source: ABC

Malekpour was reportedly tortured into signing a series of statements, but the evidence against him is laughable. What is not laughable is the campaign against free speech being waged by Islamic systems — a battle where the Western nations appear absent without leave (here and here).

Source: Globe and Mail

Last Sunday, most U.S. Catholics heard a letter read from the pulpit imploring them to oppose the Obamacare provision requiring most healthcare plans to cover contraceptive services for women. The reason given was that Catholic hospitals and universities would have to “shutter their doors”  in order to avoid heresy and be true to the faith. As part of the concerted effort, the chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Religious Liberty announced that the Obama administration’s requirement goes against “the mandate of Jesus Christ.”  Even though the earthly mandate contains an exemption for purely religious organizations, the all-male U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is clearly on the offensive in this politically charged debate about women, privacy, and the right of families to decide for themselves the number of children they can support.

Since the 1930s, most denominations have left the issue of contraception up to the conscience of the parishioners. The Catholic Church has stood virtually alone since 1951 by requiring its adherents to use only the “rhythm method” as a means to prevent pregnancy.  All other forms of contraception were deemed an interference in God’s Plan and hence heretical.  In the early 1960s with the reforms of Vatican II in full swing, the Pope appointed a 90 person committee to evaluate the Church’s position on contraception. 75 of the 90 recommended the Church allow contraception by means other than the rhythm method.

Disregarding the recommendation, Pope Paul VI issued his famous encyclical, Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed the Church’s solitary position. The Pope reasoned that, “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”  The Pope then waxed philosophic about the danger of government mandated contraception akin to that seen in China:

Careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone.

That textual cudgel has now been taken up against Obamacare.  Catholic apologists like Jennifer Brinker in the St. Louis Review have argued that the Pope was right and the government is now in the business of  pushing contraception for political reasons. Brinker even argues ironically that the mandate is a “dissolution of freedom.” Brinker reminds Catholics that disapproved contraception is a “sin” and that most Catholics don’t understand the reason for the ban.

What do Catholic women think about the Church’s unyielding stand on artificial birth control? In April of  last year, Reuters reported that a Guttmacher Institute poll showed that 98% of sexually active U.S. Catholic women used contraception methods outside of the Church’s teachings.  The numbers held up for women who regularly attended Catholic services as well as those who didn’t. In fact, the findings showed American Catholic women were just as likely to use artificial contraception as those in other denominations.

“In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible,” said the report’s lead author Rachel Jones.  Catholics overwhelmingly rely on the most common methods of birth control. Nearly 70 percent of Catholic women use sterilization, the birth control pill or an IUD, according to the Guttmacher Institute research.

What then are we to make of the schism between Church’s dogma and the reality of its followers?  Are 98% of the Church’s women sinners and heretics? Can a religion be viable if one of its fundamental tenets is  ignored on a daily basis by almost all of its “faithful”?  Can a male dominated authority maintain credibility in the modern world when it dictates to women on issues that are overwhelmingly that gender’s concern?

These questions do not seem to be troubling Church fathers.  In fact, they appear to be looking for a testosterone fueled showdown. As one recently said, “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.” They may do well to look over their shoulders as they climb up that political hill, theological banners flying. A cursory view of their ranks will likely find few honest Americans and almost no honest women.

Source: CNN

~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

Judge Waddoups wrote:

“The entirety of actions by the Utah County prosecutors tend to show either an ill-conceived public-relations campaign to showboat their own authority and/or harass the Browns and the polygamist community at large, or to assure the public that they intended to carry out their public obligations and prosecute violations of the law. Without any evidence to the contrary, the court assumes that these are consummate professionals making announcements of criminal investigations to apprise the public that they are doing their duty and seeking to enforce the law.”

The court did grant dismissal of the state governor and attorney general as parties because the Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Buhman is the relevant government official for the purposes of the challenge. We sued all three officials, but the dismissal of the two other parties will not affect the arguments in the case.

Since I am lead counsel in the case, I must remain somewhat circumspect in what I can say publicly. I have informed the Brown family of the decision. They are both deeply thankful to the Court and appreciative of the opportunity to present their case against this statute. The state has long insisted that this law is constitutional and that it may criminalize consensual private conduct between adults. It will now have the opportunity to make that case to the Court. We remain confident that this law cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny and we are eager to reach merits in the case.

I also want to recognize and thank our esteemed local counsel (and my former student) in this case, Adam Alba.

Here is the decision: Memorandum & Order-Sister Wives

Here is the complaint filed in the case: Brown Complaint

The parts of the brain that appear to differ deal with impulse control. The scientists compared abnormal brains of subjects with their siblings with normal brains and found a pronounced difference in the rate of addiction. Some 50 biological sibling pairs were tested as well as 50 healthy, unrelated pairs of people. The question is how such research would affect our laws and sentencing. This would suggest a physical predisposition. We already have laws that allow mitigation due to drug or alcohol addition, but this research could move addiction even closer to disability categories. The research however does not suggest a total predisposition or the inability to resist taking drugs in the first place.

The new article brings to mind the recent research showing teen brains develop later than previously thought (particularly in the area of risk appreciation and judgment). That would make this something of a perfect storm for some teens who (with most teens) lack brain development on risk judgment plus a predisposition for addiction.

While not to take away from the medical and legal interest in this story, I must admit that the story also inevitably brings this scene to mind:

Source: BBC

As part of the prosecution, Alain Rosenberg, the French leader of the Church, was given a two-year suspended jail sentence and fined 30,000 euros on the same charge of fraud. The trial led to a standoff with the Church which raises constitutional objections. When those objections were rejected, the defendants walked out and boycotted the trial.

Source: Yahoo

It is the latest incident of an increasing number of confrontations between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities over dogs. In Catalonia, Spain, the large Muslim community is demanding the regulation of dogs to prevent them from “offending Muslims” in public areas. In England, Muslim taxi drivers have refused to take seeing eye dogs accompanying blind people. Blind citizens in England have been barred from restaurants and buses so their companion dogs would not offend Muslims. Even the use of a picture of a dog was opposed as offensive.

The Dutch confrontation was triggered by a measure by the Party for the Animals (Partij voor de Dieren) to make the city more dog friendly. Küçük responded by demanding that the keeping of a dog be made a crime.

Muslims make up more than 12% of the city’s population of 500,000.

The campaign against dogs pits principles of religious accommodation against principles of pluralism. In this case, the Islamic value would require the loss of freedom for non-Muslim citizens by restricting or banning their dogs in public. Bans should be an easy question in that there are many public displays that may offend religious sensibilities. Families may raise their children according to their faiths but must accept that they live within a pluralistic community. Just as many of us objected to be ban on Burqas in France (which were viewed as offensive to women), these bans are equally wrongheaded. The more difficult questions come in areas of contact. For example, in England, police have been told that bomb sniffing dogs can come into contact with luggage but not the persons of Muslim passengers.

I view these proposals as inimical to a pluralistic society and also contradict principles of separation of church (or Mosque) and state. It will be interesting, however, as the anti-dog views of some Muslims become more known, whether there is an increase in tort actions based on the negligence of businesses or agencies in allowing contact with dogs by Muslims.

Source: Stonegate as first seen on Reddit

Mohammad fled after a neighbor discovered his 22-year-old wife dead in their house. Estorai told family members that her husband had repeatedly reproached her for giving birth to a girl prior to her pregnancy and threatened to kill her if she did it again.

The mother-in-law insisted that the woman committed suicide by hanging but that does not explain the flight of her son or the absence of any rope or note.

Much like Henry VIII, no one appears to have told the man that women always pass on an X chromosome to a baby, but men can pass on either an X or a Y to either produce a girl or boy. He supplied the second X chromosome. He should have, therefore, strangled himself if he was seeking a chromosomal culprit.

As horrible as this story is, there is one glimmer of hope in the fact that the government is actually seeking to arrest this man.

Source: Daily Mail

  I’d actually halfway finished a blog on a different subject today, when I was spun in a different  direction. Thursday night I had done something I never do and watched the Republican Debate in Florida. It was frighteningly enlightening to say the least, but what stood out for me was Newt commenting that our President was a disciple of Saul Alinsky. I thought then “How many people today know who Saul Alinsky was and what he represented?” On last nights Bill Maher’s show, Bill asked the question “Who was Saul Alinsky?” as part of his New Rules segment. This morning in HuffPost, Frank Mankiewicz addressed a variant of the same question: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-mankiewicz/america-meet-saul-alinsky_b_1238953.html

The idea of following heroes to me has always seemed silly, yet there are people whose lives and work I deeply admire and to some sense try to emulate. My first was Clarence Darrow and it is therefore no coincidence that I am a denizen of this blog. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Darrow .  Clarence Darrow’s picture is used above because it is in the public realm, while mysteriously Saul Alinsky’s isn’t. Obviously, Saul Alinsky is another person whose life I admire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky  Alinsky was a radical in his methods, but one who eschewed the doctrinaire self assurance of an ideologue. When asked if he ever considered joining the Communist Party he famously replied”

“Not at any time. I’ve never joined any organization—not even the ones I’ve organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it’s Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as ‘that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you’re right.’ If you don’t have that, if you think you’ve got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide.”

His was a belief that has resonated with me since those radical days in the 60’s, with the Movement, when I was surrounded by and courted by various ideologies, mostly Marxist whose rigidity of thought and party line belief, actually disgusted me. Yet there was Alinsky, the man who literally wrote the book on community organizing, who felt similarly towards ideological rigidity. He was truly an America Patriot, whose guiding idea was to assist downtrodden people to gain power over their lives and give them a chance to decide their fates. Alinsky was a man who achieved great success, if you define success as achieving ones goals. The disdain and demonization again being heaped upon him today comes from the very real threat his methodology has towards the 1% elite and curiously that aim of his was the reinstatement of “The American Dream” of freedom, equality and social justice.

The current conservative obsession with Alinsky comes from the fact that Barack Obama was supposedly an Alinsky disciple because of his community organizing work in Chicago:

“Biographer Sanford Horwitt has claimed that U.S. President Barack Obama was influenced by Alinsky and followed in his footsteps as a Chicago-based community organizer. Horwitt furthermore has asserted that Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was influenced by Alinsky’s teachings.”

Adding to their “Alinsky disdain” is that:

“Hillary Clinton‘s senior honors thesis on Saul Alinsky, written at Wellesley College, noted that Alinsky’s personal efforts were a large part of his method.”

Thus we see two villains of the extreme Right Wing of the Republican Party, being linked somewhat to Alinsky, makes bringing him back into play as a “bogeyman” fitting. In truth one of the things that swayed me to support Obama in the first place were his ties to Alinsky, via his community organizing work in Chicago. For these extremists, however, the fact that Alinsky died when Obama was ten years old, is irrelevant. The President and Hilary, to their minds, have been polluted by Alinsky’s teachings. Why one would ask are the teachings of someone who was not a Marxist, not specifically anti-capitalist and believed that people should have the freedom to make up their own minds politically, be so damned threatening to the Extreme Right?

My take on the “why” is twofold. The first is that Alinsky believed in “empowerment” of those like Blacks, Stockyard workers and the poor in general. His methods, though non-violent, were disruptive of the status quo. He became so effective in organizing protests that sometimes just the threat of a protest led to negotiation with “the powers that were”. Take a look at this particular tactic and smile:

“After organizing FIGHT (an acronym for Freedom, Independence, God, Honor, Today) in Rochester, New York, Alinsky once threatened to stage a “fart in” to disrupt the sensibilities of the city’s establishment at a Rochester Philharmonic concert. FIGHT members were to consume large quantities of baked beans after which, according to author Nicholas von Hoffman, “FIGHT’s increasingly gaseous music-loving members would hie themselves to the concert hall where they would sit expelling gaseous vapors with such noisy velocity as to compete with the woodwinds.”^[9] Satisfied with the reaction to his threat, Alinsky would later threaten a “piss in” at Chicago O’Hare Airport. Alinsky planned to arrange for large numbers of well dressed African Americans to occupy the urinals and toilets at O’Hare for as long as it took to bring the city to the bargaining table. According to Alinsky, the threat alone was sufficient to produce results.^[9]”

The elite of his time were infuriated that he had the temerity to disrupt their privileged existence. They insisted that by his not working through the “system” he was destroying our ordered way of life. The fact for instance that Blacks in the South had no system to work through, was irrelevant to those conservative forces reaping the “systems” benefits.

“In Alinsky’s opinion, new voices and new values were being heard in the U.S., and “people began citing John Donne‘s ‘No man is an island,’” he said. He observed that the hardship affecting all classes of the population was causing them to start “banding together to improve their lives,” and discovering how much in common they really had with their fellow man.^[4] He stated during an interview a few of the causes for his active organizing in black communities:

“Negroes were being lynched regularly in the South as the first stirrings of black opposition began to be felt, and many of the white civil rights organizers and labor agitators who had started to work with them were tarred and feathered, castrated—or killed. Most Southern Democrat politicians were members of the Ku Klux Klan and had no compunction about boasting of it.”^[4]”

The second reason Alinsky is anathetimized is because his tactics work so damn well that people actually gain empowerment from them. This works in tandem with the fact that it is non-ideological, so it works to blur divisions between class, race and religion. The American Elite has always made its’ mark by sowing division among the 99%. This is in fact the entire operating structure that has kept the power structure in place. It to me it is little coincidence that the real opposition to MLK  outside the South, came at a point when his organizational effort went beyond Black Civil Rights and began to display opposition to poverty and the Viet Nam War. In the South post-bellum, the average White, while still suffering under the economic oppression of the South’s Elite, under a deeply unfair economic system, nevertheless could be comforted in their poverty by the fact that their status was higher than Blacks.

What is too madly ironic to be funny is that we see today the Ultra Conservatives utilizing Alinsky’s techniques to further their ends:

“Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, which is one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization’s tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, “his tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective.” Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders.^[19]”

Below you will find a link to an illuminating debate between Alinsky and William F. Buckley. There are only five minutes video to be seen of this hour long “Firing Line” episode, but it is highly instructive. From this link you can also obtain a PDF link to a transcript of the entire debate. In both the Buckley salvos and the Alinsky responses you can see the essece of the men. Buckley, limited in tangible argument turning again and again to his huge vocabulary to throw up the smokescreen that he is actually making telling points. Alinsky, surprisingly (for political debate), honestly exposing himself as a human being, while demolishing Buckley’s false charges that would make Alinsky a threat to American Democracy.  http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/programView2.php?programID=99

Looking at the Occupy Wall Street Movement I have no proof, but little doubt, that its organizers have been highly influenced by Saul Alinsky. In my opinion we all need to brush up on the Alinsky methodology today as our only way out of the dawning of an age of Corporatist Fuedalism. Voting can only be used to stave off the potential disasters that await the 99%, if the direction of this country doesn’t change. So in answer to my posed question: “Who in Hell is Saul Alinsky”, he is one of the great minds of the Twentieth Century, when it comes to finding non-violent means of developing a more humane society. I believe that putting his concepts into use by those who truly love this country can finally bring about the changes that will save America from becoming just another Third World Nation under the rule of a monied elite.

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger.

]]> http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/28/who-in-hell-is-saul-alinsky/feed/ 53 jonathanturley 433px-Clarence_Darrow http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/27/a-response-to-senator-carl-levin-part-ii/ http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/27/a-response-to-senator-carl-levin-part-ii/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:20:00 +0000 jonathanturley http://jonathanturley.org/?p=44545 ]]> After my recent column on “Ten Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free,” I ran a response to claims made by Senator Carl Levin (D., Mich.) who was the main sponsor of the legislation including the indefinite detention provisions. Levin has now run a letter to the editor in response to my column that I believe is highly misleading and leaves readers with a false impression of both the law and my column.

Here is letter by Sen. Levin this morning:

In his Jan. 15 Outlook commentary, “Ten reasons we’re no longer the land of the free,” Jonathan Turley mischaracterized a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 that reaffirms the authority of the military to detain individuals who join al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces, and who attack the United States.

Mr. Turley disputed the Obama administration, which said that, with regard to U.S. citizens who fall in that category, “this provision only codified existing law,” i.e., it does not add new law to that issue. But Mr. Turley omitted the language in the act itself, which expressly states that “nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

Carl Levin, Washington

The writer, a Democrat from Michigan, is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

There are a number of problems with this objection. First, the column that was printed noted that “While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law “whatever the law is,” the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court.”

Second, the language cited by Levin has been ridiculed by civil libertarians as meaningless rhetoric designed to give members political cover after various members denounced the legislation as allowing indefinite detention of citizens. Without repeating the prior analysis, Levin (who assures that the law will be followed “whatever it is”) personally noted that the Administration demanded that there be no exception for citizens from indefinite detention. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.

The fact that the Senate put a clear exemption in the mandatory detention provision for citizens but opted not to simply include the same provision in the discretionary detention provision reinforces this meaning. Moreover, the same Senators who voted to deny any exemption proceeded to vote for this language — clearly indicating that it did not offer such protection for citizens.

Most importantly, Levin and others are seeking to deny the authority that the President just acknowledged in his signing statement. Obama stated “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” He does not deny that he has such authority . . . only that he does not intend to use it.

The only thing more disturbing than the provision itself is the effort of members to avoid responsibility for the provision — arguing that the civil liberties community and a wide variety of experts (as well as dozens of members of Congress) simply did not read the bill. The power, he suggests, was not given to the President despite the President’s assurance that he will not use it.

Notably, the earlier version of the column did not quote Levin on this point. I added the language before it went to print because Levin donors sent me a fax sent out by his office advancing this argument. The entire premise of both the early version and published version is that the effort to protect citizens was defeated by the Senate.

As I mentioned earlier, I often agree with Levin. However, the letter continues an effort to suggest to readers that this question is expressly answered in the bill. The clear effort is to dismiss the view of civil libertarians and members as ill-informed and portray the concern over civil liberties as baseless. I am not sure what is worse: exposing citizens to indefinite detention or misleading citizens that they need not be concerned because the Congress has their back.

Bastrop Police Chief Michael Black says that Bartlett admitted that he caught the cat, named Moody, when he was trying to get rid of cats. He left Moody in the back of his truck for three days because he allegedly “forgot” it. He then brought it to the police who noted that the claimed “feral” cat had a name tag including the phone number of Moody’s owners, Sarah and Eddy Bell, on its collar. The officer said Bartlett promised to return the cat to the owners, but it was found later that day on the bank of the Colorado River below a bridge. It turns out that the same animal control officer called to the scene happened to be the one who had assisted Bartlett earlier that day and recognized the cat.

Sarah Bell says that the crime has destroyed her daughter’s faith after learning the preacher allegedly committed the crime. When Bell told her that Moody was in heaven now, her daughter responded “I don’t believe in Heaven anymore, Moody’s just dead.”

Bartlett faces a charge of animal cruelty which could result in a $4,000 fine and a year’s imprisonment.

Source: KVUE as first seen on Reddit

The bill states that “[t]he governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.” The language appears to be an effort to circumvent the holding in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), where the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring the teaching of creationism in Louisiana schools in 1987. The Court stressed that “[w]e do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.” The Court added that “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.” (emphasis added)

This law could force a reexamination of that caveat and the overwhelming view of scientists that creationism is a religious not a scientific theory. Notably one of the two dissenting justices was Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Other states like Tennessee have moved to re-introduce creationism in schools as a “controversy” in science. Louisiana itself has used this approach to circumvent the precedent that it created in Edwards.

This legislation could lead to another major decision if it were to get to the Court, though Scalia would find new allies in jurists like Clarence Thomas. The Court held that it was unconstitutional when “pre-eminent purpose of the Louisiana Legislature was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind.” On his official legislative site, Kruse has highlighted his work with such groups as “Child Evangelism Fellowship of Northeastern Indiana,” “The Gideons International,” “Northeast Indiana Youth for Christ Board, Chairman,” “County Line Church of God,” and other such groups.

Another supporter, Sen. Scott Schneider, R-Indianapolis, said that “many” scientists agree with creationism and asked “[w]hat are we afraid of? Allowing an option for students including creation science as opposed to limiting their exposure?”

Just to be clear, the fear is not that evolution could not hold its own as a scientific theory but that we are suggesting to students that creationism has a scientific basic. Beyond the “Creation Science boards, “many” scientists are not supportive of creationism and that suggestion by Schneider shows how “facts” are invented to suggest a scientific basis for creationism. According to a 1991 Gallup poll, only 5% of scientists identified themselves as creationists. However, even this small number was questioned since it included those with training outside biology.

Notably, these schools could take the lead from Governor Romney who has stated that evolution is a scientific theory while creationism is a philosophy. In Iowa, he explained:

“In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed,” he said. “If we’re going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that’s for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies class.”

For academics in Indiana, this must be a particularly low moment. Indiana is a state with terrific institutions of higher learning. This bill looks like an appeal from The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes — 87 years too late.

Source: Courier Journal

The good news is that 90 percent of Germans recognized the name but the shocker came with the polling of the 21 percent of 18-29 year olds.

Moreover, nearly a third of the 1,002 people questioned did not know that Auschwitz was in today’s Poland.

The anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Soviet troops is on January 27, 1945.

Source: Hurriyet

Dhillon argues that the joke and image created libel on its face that exposed Sikhs and their religion to hatred, contempt and ridicule by portraying the holiest place in the Sikh religion as a vacation resort owned by a non-Sikh. That would be ridiculous on its face and presumably will prompt a filing for sanctions as a frivolous and vexatious lawsuit.

In Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), the United States Supreme Court voted unanimous 8–0 to reject a libel claim based on an obvious joke. Hustler ran a parody in poor taste that suggested Falwell had an incestuous encounter with his mother in an outhouse. The court not only applied the higher New York Times v. Sullivan standard, but held that, even when the joke is meant to harm the image of the target, it can be protected:

“The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events – an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal. . . Despite their sometimes caustic nature, from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day, graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a prominent role in public and political debate.”

What is astonishing about this lawsuit is that no reasonable person would view this picture as defamatory or harmful to any individual, let alone to a group — even if it were ever taken seriously.

The Sikh litigants in this case have joined Muslim litigants in showing as little sense of law as they do a sense of humor. In the United States, it is extremely difficult to maintain a “group libel” case even when there is jurisdiction. One of the leading cases occurred in 1952 in a New York lawsuit. In Neiman-Marcus v. Lait, 13 FRD 311 (SDNY 1952), employees of that high-end story sued the author of a book titled “U.S.A. Confidential.” The book claimed that some of the models at the store and all of the saleswomen in the Dallas store were “call girls.” It further stated that most of the salesmen in the men’s department were “faggots.” The issue came down to the size of the group. With 382 saleswomen and models, the court found that the group was too large. However, with the 25 salesmen, the court found that an action could be maintained.

Dhillon uses the lawsuit to complain about Leno’s past statements regarding Sikhs: “Previously, in 2007 he called Sikhs ‘diaper heads.’ In 2010, he remarked, falsely so, in his monolog that President Obama could not visit Sri Darbar Sahib because of requirements of wearing a turban. Clearly, Jay Leno’s racist comments need to be stopped right here.”

As reprehensible as such comments can be, the torts system is not designed to correct sectarian or religious sensibilities.

Dhillon however is not alone in being humor-challenged. Vayalar Ravi, the visiting affairs minister for non-resident Indians, has called on the government to crackdown: “I believe the person who has shown [it] is not that ignorant. The American government should also look at this kind of thing.”

In the interests of legal clarity, below are the summer homes that I have purchased with the copious advertising revenue from this blog:

Source: Daily Mail

The alleged violations were found by a man taking aerial photographs of the river.

The Texas Environmental Crimes Task Force is focusing on a a secondary pipe not connected with the waste water system where the blood appears to have been dumped into Cedar Creek and then into the Trinity River.

The plant has been in repeated legal problems including citations in 2008 and 2009 for inhumane treatment or slaughter of animals.

What is interesting is that the Trinity empties into the city’s new whitewater kayaking area. So Texans have been recreating in water possible saturated with pig blood and toxic chemicals from the plant. Not only would most people find swimming in pig blood rather offensive, but some people of the Jewish and Muslim faith would find such exposure to be emotionally distressing. They could argue that the exposure constitute battery and negligent infliction of emotional distress. It would make for a fascinating case, particularly on the question of damages. The company could argue that the exposure does not mean that the blood was actually digested — reducing the possible distress damages.

Restaurants have been sued for unknowingly serving prohibited foods like beef to Hindus. Another such lawsuit involved serving pork to a Muslim. Actually swimming in pig blood would seem to raise some obvious problems for civil lawsuits in addition to the environmental criminal allegations faced by the company.

Source: CBS

What is fascinating is the change in the language of intolerance. I have been critical of the Obama Administration’s work with Middle Eastern countries on establishing the basis for prosecution anti-religious speech. Recently the Administration got these extremist countries to adopt the Brandenburg standard as the basis for such prosecutions. These cases show the mentality of countries pushing for a “balance” between free speech and religion. It also shows why the use of the Brandenburg standard is so dangerous in the hands of such officials who view free speech as the cause of imminent violence. Here Latif insisted that prosecution is necessary because such readings may “provoke people,” warning “it is responsibility of police, administration and organisers to ensure that no such things happen in the event but it is unfortunate that the banned book was read.”

That is how imminent “imminent lawless action” plays out in nations enforcing blasphemy values.

Source: Outlook India as first seen on Reddit.

For those of us critical of the faith-based politics of both parties and the erosion of the separation of church and state, Dozier is a perfect nightmare.

Dozier previously announced (below) that “The Tea party is a Godly ordained party.” He added “[i]f not for the Republican party, and the Tea Party, the Negro would be a slave. The best thing to happen to the Negro, is the Tea Party”-

I can live with the sermon on God’s view of the tax code and the Tea Party. However, I assured that that is a Cincinnati Reds hat and not a Bears hat. This season has been bad enough. We don’t need to add Dozier.

Dozier has been a guest of George Bush at the White House and says that he was previously under contract with NPR.

When he is not rallying people to join “God’s party,” he is attacking homosexuals whom he declared as responsible for “something so nasty and disgusting that it makes God want to vomit.”

While most people would not want to be in the same room with such a person, Santorum was not satisfied with just an endorsement and instead made him his honorary Florida campaign chairman. He is now campaigning by Santorum by reminding Christians that Romney is a Mormon and is thus unacceptable for faith-based voters. Now, I cannot speak for God, but such an association would challenge the intestinal fortitude of many voters.

Source: Mother Jones

Cheryl Jones was attending services at the Disciple Fellowship Christian Church of East St. Louis, Illinois, when a female parishioner received the Holy Spirit. When she fell, she knocked over others in a domino effect. Jones was knocked to the floor and several people fell on top of her. Jones alleges she suffered injuries to her head, neck, back, and buttocks.

Jones’ lawsuit notes a failure to ensure that ushers were standing by to catch any parishioners when the Holy Spirit enters and they lose consciousness. Jones is seeking at least $50,000 in damages.

Even with the absence of “catchers,” a jury may find it unforeseeable that Jones would be injured by the domino effect of falling parishioners.

These “swoon and fall” lawsuits are not uncommon. In a Michigan case, Judith Dadd received a combined judgement of $317,255.68 when she fell and struck her head on the floor. On appeal, only the $40,000 claim for negligence was affirmed.

In Beaverton, Oregon, a “catcher” was injured when a parishioner fell on Shin Lim Kim causing a lumbar spine compression fracture at L-2. Her lawsuit asserts that the church should have provided multiple “catchers” and mats to cover the floor. The suit also names the falling parishioner as a defendant for “failing to control her body” when she was “slain in the spirit.” Kim was seeking $125,000. However, an Oregon jury found the church was not liable for injuries to a “catcher.”

From a scientific point of view, and by that I mean a reality point of view, since nothing actually enters the parishioner’s body, this is entirely a self-inflicted injury. Whether or not this can be used as a viable legal defense, the defendant (church) is likely to perceive such a defense as self-defeating.

H/T: Legal Blog Watch, On Point News.

This week I’m presenting something a little different as a blog. I’ve just read an incredibly interesting book that I was turned onto by either or both, Dredd and Anon Nurse. This book has added scientific clarity to a phenomenon that I’ve noticed for many years, with dismay. Why is it that some people, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, doggedly hold onto beliefs that they can’t logically defend? We can all agree that there are some issues that simply do not lend themselves to being categorized into absolutes of right and wrong. However, I will let the reader catalog those issues mentally, since there will be some who would no doubt take umbrage from any examples I would personally present. Yet I assert that there are some issues where despite probable protests, are not open to rational dispute. One of these is the age of the Earth and the Universe. The Earth is far older than Creationists/Intelligent Design advocates would set at six or seven thousand years. This is proven fact. I note that there are many religious people who accept this scientific fact and yet still believe in a creator and while not by any means a fundamentalist, I do believe that there is a creative force that informs the Universe. Whatever that force may be, it did its thing multiple billions of years ago.

I presented the above to illustrate the difference between a proven fact and an as yet, if ever, provable belief. The book “The Authoritarians” was written by Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. Professor Altemeyer has spent more than forty years doing research as a Social Psychologist into the parameters and root causes of authoritarian behavior in human beings. John Dean, of Watergate renown, made Bob semi-famous by using Bob’s work as a framework for his book “Conservatives Without Conscience”. I call Professor Altemeyer “Bob”, not out of personal familiarity, but because one of the joys of this book is that though it is a serious socio-psychological work, it is written by a man who doesn’t take himself too seriously, while presenting a very serious subject. My original intent in writing this piece was to present my conclusions, using the book as backup. However, the book, though well-documented, is only 262 pages and at the end of this piece will be a link that allows you to download it for free and read it. Bob presents this important topic far better than I could ever condense it. I’ll just give you a taste, hopefully whetting your appetite and then let you read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

This book was written before the 2008 elections and yet it is even more current today as we see the Republican Party in the hands of the most radically conservative factions of the last 80 years and the Democratic Party decidedly right of center. Bob writes this:

“But why should you even bother reading this book? I would offer three reasons. First, if you are concerned about what has happened in America since a radical right-wing segment of the population began taking control of the government about a dozen years ago, I think you’ll find a lot in this book that says your fears are well founded. As many have pointed out, the Republic is once again passing through perilous times. The concept of a constitutional democracy has been under attack–and by the American government no less!

The second reason I can offer for reading what follows is that it is not chock full of opinions, but experimental evidence.

The last reason why you might be interested in the hereafter is that you might want more than just facts about authoritarians, but understanding and insight into why they act the way they do. Which is often mind-boggling. How can they revere those who gave their lives defending freedom and then support moves to take that freedom away? How can they go on believing things that have been disproved over and over again, and disbelieve things that are well established? How can they think they are the best people in the world, when so much of what they do ought to show them they are not? Why do their leaders so often turn out to be crooks and hypocrites? Why are both the followers and the leaders so aggressive that hostility is practically their trademark?”

Though this book was written more than five years ago, how descriptive of the Campaign of 2012 is it? I think it sums up what we have been seeing politically and presents reasons for this phenomenon of seeming insanity that has overtake our politics. Incidentally, this book in describing the effect of the authoritarian personality on politics, does not limit the authoritarian personality to Republicans and/or Conservatives. An authoritarian personality is one that submits to authority in both thinking and actions. As we have seen in this past century communists, creatures of the far left, also share authoritarian personalities. I believe that a percentage of Democrats also have authoritarian personalities, but to a lesser degree than their political opposites.

“Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled, customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these followers have personalities featuring:

 1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;

2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and

3) a high level of conventionalism.”

I can immediately see an objection raised in the minds of some readers regarding Authoritarians supporting established authorities including government officials. They might well think well the ultra-Conservative Movement is anti-government, so how could they be Authoritarian in personality? The answer is I think easy. ”Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders.”  To many Authoritarians FOX News represents an established authority. The whole movement about Obama’s birth certificate was at base a means to reject the legitimacy of his authority as President. The power of fundamentalist religious leaders in Republican politics and politics in general is undisputed.

 “[A] right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have conservative political views. Instead he’s someone who readily submits to the established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional. It’s an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics. Rightwing authoritarianism is a personality trait, like being characteristically bashful or happy or grumpy or dopey. 

 You could have left-wing authoritarian followers as well, who support a revolutionary leader who wants to overthrow the establishment. I knew a few in the 1970s, Marxist university students who constantly spouted their chosen authorities, Lenin or Trotsky or Chairman Mao. Happily they spent most of their time fighting with each other”

Like Professor Altemeyer, in the 60’s and 70’s I was quite familiar with Left Wing Authoritarians of this sort. They were every bit as wrong and as exasperating as their counterparts on the Right. In fact should they ever gain control of a society, such as happened in the USSR and China, the results would be equally disastrous as anything produced on the Right. As to whether this book is a partisan screed I would submit that John Dean, is a lifelong Republican Conservative and Professor Altemeyer considers himself middle of the road. This is about the kind of submission to “authority” that has allowed unscrupulous leaders throughout human history to turn masses of people into pitiless killers.

 “Not only do authoritarian followers uncritically accept conclusions that support their religious beliefs, they have a problem with evidence in general. They are more likely than most people to think that, since airplane crashes sometimes occur when the pilots’ “biorhythms” are at a low point, this proves biorhythms affect our lives. They buy the argument that if skeptics have introduced controls against cheating in ESP experiments, and no ESP appears, that proves skepticism interferes with the ESP powers. They think that any time science cannot explain something, this proves mysterious supernatural forces are at work. True, they are less likely to believe in Bigfoot than in the Shroud of Turin. But they do not in general have a very critical outlook on anything unless the authorities in their lives have condemned it for them. Then they can be extremely critical.”

This book spends a good deal of time discussing the effects of religion onto Authoritarian Personality types. By accepting fully the preaching’s of their religious leaders, millions of people have been killed in the name of one God or another. Via documented experiments this book documents these tendencies and even supplies well grounded reasoning on how they begin in individuals. Bob links fundamentalist religious belief to ultra-conservative beliefs via persuasive studies. Most astounding of all his finding to him and to me is that perhaps 20% of the religious fundamentalists he’s studied have read their entire bible.

“The Most Amazing Discovery of All (to me, anyway). Isn’t there something profoundly strange about the fact that so many fundamentalists have apparently skipped over so much of the Bible? Wouldn’t you read the Bible, cover to cover, over and over, until the end of your days, if you really thought this was the revealed word of God? Let’s remember who that is: GOD, damn it all, the almighty, eternal, omnipresent–not to mention all-knowing–creator of the universe. What else could you read that would be as important as God’s message, if you believed that’s what the Bible is? What could be one-zillionth as important? What on earth is going on? Don’t the fundamentalists themselves believe what they preach to everyone else?”

Religious Authoritarians apparently don’t read their holy books for themselves but accept the words of their leaders and read only the passages that their leaders direct them to. It is so easy for many of us to decry the “insanity” of Islamic Fundamentalists following their Mullahs. Indeed, I would think that if Bob studied Muslim’s he would find equally that many have never fully read the Koran. To be Authoritarian is to unquestioningly accept the preaching of those one sees as their “legitimate leaders”.  The certainty that pervades their thinking, often is not eve backed up intellectually by a full familiarity with the holy books proclaimed as “God’s Truth”.

Two psychology professors Felicia Pratto of the University of Connecticut and Jim Sidanius at UCLA, developed the Social Dominance Orientation Scale in 1994. This was a test to measure which individuals tend to dominate in social situations, or who crave to dominate.  Sam McFarland at the University of Western Kentucky followed up using that scale and others to show the scales’ validity. Professor Altemeyer followed up on their work adding in the years of research he had done. It turs out that people who tend to dominate and lead those with authoritarian personalities are much less than “true believers”. They are in fact imbued with one basic belief and that is to get to the top of the pyramid.

“Persons who score highly on the Social Dominance scale do not usually have all the nooks and crannies, contradictions and lost files in their mental life that we find in high RWA’s [Rightwing Authoritarians]. Most of them do not show weak reasoning abilities, highly compartmentalized thinking, and certainly not a tendency to trust people who tell them what they want to hear. They’ve got their head together. Nor are most of them dogmatic or particularly zealous about any cause or philosophy. You have to believe in something to be dogmatic and zealous, and what social dominators apparently believe in most is not some creed or cause, but gaining power by any means fair or foul. The “soundness” of their thinking hardly means you can believe them, however”

If the above studies are valid, doesn’t America’s currently insane political situation begin to make some sense? In this respect can’t we see how Newt Gingrich could proclaim himself a champion of “family values” or in fact our President who ran on “change” having changed so little? Mitt Romney, a formerly “Centrist” governor, now proclaims himself the “true” conservative in the race for the nomination. And please don’t get me started on Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.

It’s my hope in this highly favorable “review”, more aptly exhortation, that you will click on the link below, download this book and read it. There are solutions offered and there is far more content condensed in this book than I could have done justice to in this rather long blog post. I believe that this book contains information vital to us all if our vision of America is to survive, along with our freedom and that of our descendants.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger.

In a recent full-page paid advertisement in the Washington Post, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and dozens of leaders of Catholic organizations voiced their opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule which they describe as forcing private health providers to provide “preventive services.” The HHS plan mandates, without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible, the provision of FDA-approved contraception methods. The advertisement claims these drugs may cause abortions which, by their definition, includes any single-celled  fertilized egg that doesn’t implant.

The ad claims that following the HHS rule would violate their religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

Upon closer examination, their claims are based on dubious assumptions. Consider the claim that the rule would “forc[e] almost all private health plans” to provide a particular coverage. The implication is that the government would force private insurers to provide this coverage, against their will. I am skeptical that the USCCB has surveyed insurance providers to support this claim. It is reasonable that insurance providers would see preventative measures as a cost-effective tool to reduce payouts. Many more insurance providers would provide contraception coverage were it not for pressure brought by these organizations. The HHS rule would give those insurance providers, who want to provide contraception coverage, the freedom to do so without fear of harassment or boycott.

An employer who provides workplace health insurance can, based on religious beliefs, coerce female employees to sign up with an insurance plan that does not cover contraception. An employee, who may not share the employer’s religious beliefs, is denied her right to contraception as found in Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird.

In a news release from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the state provides a compelling rationale for the rule:

Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, it is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women.

Health care providers have a professional responsibility to their patients that transcends personal convictions. The duties of a health care professional are based on the best available science and are not there to be molded to fit their personal preferences.

The HHS rule includes a waiver that allows certain nonprofit religious employers to opt-out of the preventative services requirement. Other nonprofit employers who, because of religious convictions, do not provide preventative services in their insurance plans will be given one year to comply with the new rule.

The war on contraception is, in fact, a war on a woman’s right to engage in nonprocreative sexual intercourse. Those who often decry governmental intrusion in our lives are the first to support governmental intrusion into our sexual choices.

H/T: Sarah Posner.

The program New Star was informed of the decision this week and barred from holding the competition. One of the complaints is that women appeared in sleeveless dresses. That’s right, sleeveless.

It does appear however that there was a Biblical Idol show that was also a problem back in the day. After all Abraham busted up idols and asked “why worship idols?”

However, “Hamas permits male barbershop style singing groups that do not use musical instruments and sing of the glory of Islam and to fighting Israel.” The image of a barbershop quartet singing about destroying Israel is a bit hard to imagine. Of course, those signing barbers are subject to arrest if they cut female hair.

However, the dark side of barbershop quartets has been seen in this country. Indeed, this act might play well at the Hamas political convention:

Source: Washington Post

Dharmasraya Police Chief Sr. Comr. Chairul Aziz stated that Alexander, 31, a civil servant in West Sumatra, is charged with blasphemy. He said that it was better for Alexander to be in police custody anyway given the threats against his life and that he is being advised by “the West Sumatra Coordinating Agency to Supervise Religion and Beliefs (Bakorpakem) as well as the Ministry of Religious Affairs.”

Alexander was previously attacked after he wrote that “God does not exist” on “Ateis Minang” (“Minang Atheists”), his Facebook site. There is no word on any arrests of the attackers but they did arrest the atheist.

The violence against atheists is encouraged by Western leaders and religious figures who have denounced them as akin to terrorists or simply a threat to humanity. Atheists are now ranked with rapists in polls.

As the Obama Administration continues to work with such nations to develop speech codes vis-a-vis religion, these cases show the mentality of countries pushing for a “balance” between free speech and religion. It also shows why the use of the Brandenburg standard is so dangerous in the hands of such officials who view free speech as the cause of imminent violence.

Source: Jakarta Globe

Strivelli was turned away after she was told that the Gideons like any other religion was free to make the bibles available.

We have previously seen controversies over such programs in public schools. I have no problem with various religious books being available in libraries at schools so long as there is an array of different faiths represented. However, the use of the principal’s office to distribute free bibles sends a clear message of endorsement and entanglement, particularly when other faiths are excluded. I fail to see how a principal or a school board would not see the constitutional implications of such a practice. I also do not see why, with the myriad of other pressing issues for our schools, administrators cannot leave faith to parents and families.

Yet, some individuals like Bobby Honeycutt insist that “[o]ur country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, not on Wiccan principles.” While I would not argue that the Framers contained any practicing Wiccans, I believe our country was found on principles of pluralism and equality. The school district needs to end the use of school offices and officials in the distribution of religious material . . . and reexamine how such constitutional violations could occur without being flagged by counsel or administrators. It should not take a mother to force the issue for the district to comply with constitutional principles.

Source: News Observer

The speech included the following highly partisan remarks:

“Teachers, and firefighters, and policemen, whose jobs are now in jeopardy because Congress–well let me be specific–because the Republicans in Congress,” Jarrett told the crowd. According to the CBS affiliate in Atlanta, at this point, “Before she could finish her sentence, people in the congregation were laughing, and applauding.”

Jarrett also celebrated the killing of Osama bin Laden — a developing theme by the President and his supporters to highlight his national security credentials. At some point, this becomes a bit distasteful like a modern version of the old system of quartering enemies and sending his body parts around the country to thrill the populace. William Wallace was displayed in separate parts in Newcastle upon Tyne, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Stirling, and Aberdeen. I have no grief for Osama bin laden who is no William Wallace and frankly I am glad he is no longer with us. However, the use of his killing as a campaign theme is a bit off-putting.

Jarrett, however, used the church to relish the killing a bit more and noted “We all sleep a little better at night knowing Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenants are not plotting a terrorist attack against the United States.” If that is the case, by the way, is it time to declare victory in the war against terror? The position of the Administration is that the plotting continues . . . as do the president’s increasing national security powers.

Here is what the IRS says about 501(c)(3) organizations:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.

These remarks would appear to cross the line laid out by the IRS. The timing of the registration directly after the remarks only magnifies the problem.

The article below describes these proceedings before a sheikh who warns witnesses “You must speak the truth, sister. Because Allah is listening to your every word, you can lie to us but not to Him.”

There are an estimated 85 Sharia councils in Britain. What is fascinating is that the English Muslim lawyers are now actively seeking clients to represent in the burgeoning legal system.

While I support the right to these people in seeking justice from Sharia courts as a private matter, I will not hide my concern. It represents a further separation from society for Muslim families and a further compartmentation of parts of society into insular communities. Civil courts should represent part of our collective covenant to live in a unified legal system. Another concern is that it can reinforce those who oppose separation of church or mosque and state. With quasi-courts meting out faith-based justice, many are likely to seek other expression of religious doctrine in laws and policies.

These concerns should not trump the right of citizens to resolve their disputes in such private disputes. For that reason, there are times when Sharia law may become relevant to contractual and other disputes. Indeed, in New York there were dozens of Jewish courts used by immigrants in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Some such courts continue to operate in this country as do informal Sharia courts.

Source: BBC

Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger

On Monday we celebrate the life of the Reverend Martin Luther King and honor him for his work with the Civil Rights movement.  One of his most famous speeches was the 1963 “I Have A Dream” speech that he gave in Washington, D.C. to a crowd of thousands.  In that speech he laid out his vision and hopes for the Civil Rights movement.  I would like to review some of his words and discuss if his dream came true for African-Americans and minorities throughout our country. “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” ‘ Huffington Post

Those words seem clear enough, but at the time Rev. King gave this speech, it had been 100 years since Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the African-American was not free and equal to the white man in this country.  Jim Crow laws throughout the South kept African-Americans isolated and humiliated.  Lynchings and beatings were still far too common.  So how has the South progressed since Dr. King expressed his dream?

It seems clear that life in the South has improved for African-Americans.  African-Americans have become professionals and teachers and even Mayors of cities and towns throughout the South.  Black Congressmen and women have been elected from the South and Jim Crow is but a remnant of the history books.  In the North, Blacks have also progressed in all walks of life.  One African-American of mixed heritage grew up to be elected to the Illinois State House and the United States Senate and made it all the way to the White House.  The ability of Barack Obama to become President was made possible by Dr. King and his comrades who brought the Civil Rights movement to all of our doorsteps.

Do these successes mean that Dr. King’s ‘Dream” did come true?  I submit that at least one aspect of his dream is partly unfulfilled.  While African-Americans have made significant progress, they still lag financially behind their white counterparts.  “The gap between Black and white household [accumulated] wealth quadrupled from 1984 to 2007, totally discrediting the conventional wisdom that the U.S. is slowly and fitfully moving towards racial equality, or some rough economic parity between the races. Like most American myths, it’s the direct opposite of the truth. When measured over decades, Blacks are being propelled economically downward relative to whites at quickening speed, according to a new study by Brandeis University.”  Alternet   Without equal opportunity in the financial arena, can it truly be said that Dr. King’s dream has come true?

“A huge wealth gap has opened up between black and white people in the US over the past quarter of a century – a difference sufficient to put two children through university – because of racial discrimination and economic policies that favour the affluent.  A typical white family is now five times richer than its African-American counterpart of the same class, according to a report released today by Brandeis University in Massachusetts.  White families typically have assets worth $100,000 (£69,000), up from $22,000 in the mid-1980s. African-American families’ assets stand at just $5,000, up from around $2,000. A quarter of black families have no assets at all. The study monitored more than 2,000 families since 1984.  “We walk that through essentially a generation and what we see is that the racial wealth gap has galloped, it’s escalated to $95,000,” said Tom Shapiro, one of the authors of the report by the university’s Institute on Assets and Social Policy.”  Guardian

While significant progress has been made in many areas, the African-American is still trailing far behind his white brothers and sisters financially.  If that huge disparity in income and assets can’t be shrunk, will the Black man ever be truly free?  Dr. King initiated a huge improvement in the freedom for many, but his work is not completely done.  When we celebrate the day set aside to honor his legacy, maybe we should think of ways that the financial gap between blacks and whites can be narrowed.  Without all people being equal in all areas, how can any of us really be free?  What ideas do you have?

Additional reference:  US Constitution.net

Almost four weeks ago I read an article in Huffington Post entitled: “Can Loving A Robot Lead to Divorce?” by Vicki Larson, a journalist. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-larson/robots_1_b_1150679.html  Ms. Larson introduces her piece by quoting the claims of a current manufacturer of anatomically correct “sex robots”, who presumably speak and move in sexual ways. I followed the article’s link to the website of the robots inventor, Douglas Hines, who enthusiastically discusses his creation and has a few videos (non-explicit) that demonstrate the robot’s “capabilities”. While the HuffPost article links the Company’s website, I’m not doing it here, since publicizing this device is not my aim. Should you want further information it is available at the articles link. The “sex robot” being produced now is but an update on inflatable sex toys, though with a “skeleton”, rudimentary movement and speech added. It therefore is only an opening reference to a real issue that will shortly become scientifically possible.

The next part of this short article is an overview with of the opinion of  Artificial Intelligence Expert David Levy http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=humans-marrying-robots  “It also may be the future of love and marriage, if you believe artificial intelligent (AI) expert David Levy, author of Love and Sex With Robots. According to Levy, human-robot sex, love and marriage is inevitable — perhaps as soon as 2025. He predicts that robots may not only be more lovable and faithful than many humans, but they may even be more emotionally available than the “typical American human male.” Not only will they make us become better, more creative lovers, but they also will offer those singles who feel a void in their emotional and sexual lives and married couples with differing sexual needs new, nonjudgmental ways to be happy and healthy. Although Levy believes that the “availability of regular sex with a robot will dramatically reduce the incidence of infidelity as we know it today,” he also acknowledges there may be some potential sticky points. “Some human spouses and lovers might consider robot sex to be just as unfaithful as sex with another person.”

Levy’s view naturally flows into the conclusion of the article which is an E Mail interview with Sonya Ziaja, a San Francisco Bay Area attorney who blogs at numerous law and policy media outlets as well as her own, Shark. Laser. Blawg.

“And what could be more fraught with legal dilemmas than a love triangle among a married couple and a sexbot? How that might impact a divorce? That’s what Ziaja explores in her paper, “Homewrecker 2.0: An Exploration of Liability for Heart Balm Torts Involving AI Humanoid Consorts,” which she presented at the 2011 International Conference on Social Robotics that took place in Amsterdam at the end of November.

“If the doll’s owner becomes enamored with the doll, and leaves his spouse, can the spouse sue as she or he would be able to if the interloper had been human? And who would be sued? The manufacturer? Inventor? The AI itself?” she questions. “So long as we’re intent on adding socially interactive AI into situations that would ordinarily be only human. … socially interactive robots need to be ‘safe to play with’ in a way that manufacturers of toaster ovens never had to imagine.”

Thus we are presented here with a legal quandary instigated by the advent of revolutionary technology affecting serious legal, moral and ethical issues. How should we view this inevitability and how shall we deal with it as a society?

The development of artificially intelligent robots has been a theme in speculative fiction dating back to the 1920 science fiction play R.U.R. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R. The theme of that play was the development of Robots with artificial intelligence that eventually destroy humanity. Ninety-two years ago this piece of speculative fiction foresaw what is fast becoming possible today. Within the next two decades it is likely that artificially intelligent androids, with realistic sexual features, will be produced. They will be able to carry on conversations and yet if the laws don’t change they will essentially become chattel. The question then will be how this impacts on humanity in general and on U.S. Law in particular?

In one sense this development can be seen as a very positive one for those of us unable to find spouses and/or sexual partners. It may diminish rape, some might argue, but I think that a vain hope, since to me rape is more about power/sadism and less about sex, though sex provides a means to that end. Talking about relationships though, I can see “sex robots” having a profound effect on the sexual lives of many people. More and more today sex has become “commoditized” by Corporations seeking higher profits. It has become a “sales tool” and in the process sex has been sold to many as an aim in itself. In truth, it hasn’t been a hard sell because throughout human history many have seen sex as its’ own end. In the height of my testosterone fueled years, I never viewed sex strictly as an end, which was considered peculiar among my male friends, because for me it was always caught up in how much I was attracted to the personality of a female rather than just her personification as an opportunity for fun. In that sense I don’t think I am typical and so I think many males/females might find a responsive robot an easier companion than a real live human.

The coming of a sexually capable android with Artificial Intelligence (AI) is just years away. As alluded to above this will profoundly affect human society, I believe it will be seen as a danger by many and to others a liberation. If we think the law is severely taxed by complex issues now, wait until the day this evolution in technology becomes common reality. Perhaps initially there will be alienation of affection lawsuits; the assertion of new forms of marital desertion; issues of child custody; claims of sexual deviancy requiring control; and of course a threat to “normal” heterosexual marriage. That is the easy part. In truth, given the power of profit in human dealings all of those objections will be met and dealt with, in new permutations of law that will allow the widespread sale of this innovation.

Having self awareness has always been a criterion that we see as setting humans above and apart from other animals. The true measure of self-awareness is the ability to communicate that awareness to others. Experimentally it has been show that other creatures are self aware, including whales, dolphins, apes, dogs, etc. Despite this, humanity for the most part still exercises dominion over these lesser creatures, via denial and more effectively with might making right. Yet we are now on the verge of having actual AI androids, with self awareness a crucial component of true AI status, which will in effect be the beginning of a new race of beings. They will definitely be a race that seems outwardly in all respects human, but humans will have created them. Knowing humanity all too well I can see that we will expect this newly created race, to serve us well beyond being our “love slaves”. The law will adapt to cover these issues, but with ongoing legal/political warfare stretching over decades. Given the empty hullabaloo about Gay Marriage coming from religious entities today, the long continuing struggle for homosexual equality that has caused such bitterness, just imagine when the first male/female demands to be legally married to their android partner. (Please note here that I’m not even dealing with human cloning which is a parallel issue with the same potential volatile outcomes)

Sexuality and marriage are mere jumping off points for what will be one of the great confusing new realities/conflicts of human history, exacerbated by religious orthodoxy. This new race of beings, whether clone or android, will be self replicating in any of a number of ways. How will humanity deal with them, other than initially seeing them as chattel? If as a being you are self aware, have fair to high intelligence and the capability to self replicate, wouldn’t you chafe under the thumb of human rule? We then see that the basis of the popular “Terminator” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_%28franchise%29    movie series has more depth than merely an excuse for spectacular battle and special effects, despite their creators unwillingness to plumb the less superficial depths of the films implications. Since many of those who regularly comment here are also Science Fiction enthusiasts, like me, they are quite aware that since Capek’s R.U.R., these themes have been constantly explored within that genre. Lately, I have been quite engrossed with Iain M. Banks “Culture” series, which incorporates this very discussion as its major theme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Banks  In the past though Isaac Asimov dealt extensively with this and developed his “Three Laws of Robotics”.  Asimov showed perhaps naive faith that all manufacturers would incorporate these “Laws” into their creations.  Unfortunately, due to the era Asimov worked in, exploring robot sexuality in depth would have been taboo and possibly legally dangerous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

I began with robot sex and marriage, but I’ve ended up dealing with what to me will be the greater issue threatening or benefiting humanity. Given we don’t destroy ourselves first; humans will be creating sentient life very shortly. Since all new technology is impelled by the quest for knowledge, with the quest for profit following closely in its wake, evolutionary/revolutionary change is unavoidable. How we deal with these coming innovations may shape the future of our species for good or ill. I personally haven’t decided where I stand in terms of this beginning debate; perhaps you can assist with my ambiguity?

submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald R. Lagueux issued a 40-page ruling Wednesday but I have not been able to review it (and this morning it is still not on Lexis/Nexis).

In the complaint below, the ACLU details how Ahlquist tried to engage her friends but found few allies in her campaign to have the prayer removed. She was undeterred by the peer pressure and created a Facebook account to campaign for its removal.

When she learned that the School Committee had established a subcommittee to consider the Prayer, she mustered her courage and spoke against the Prayer at its meeting on November 30, 2011 (11/30/11 Min. at 10) (“But, as an atheist, I have the right to go to school and not feel discriminated against by the people who are praying there.”) “When [Plaintiff] said she was an atheist, someone in the room let out a small gasp and J –A- heard some quiet whispering. She felt they dismissed her beliefs and feelings, and made her feel entirely alone, causing her to wonder whether she was irrational for feeling the way she did. She also felt extremely nervous and unwelcome at this meeting.” (Pl. Int. # 5 at 8)

Plaintiff also spoke out against the Prayer at the Subcommittee meeting of February 22, 2011 (2/22/11 Min. at 7) and at the School Committee meeting of March 7, 2011 (3/7/11 Min. at 60 and video of entire proceedings, Pl. 19). At the February 22 subcommittee meeting, Plaintiff again was made to “feel very intimidated and nervous, as well as hated. Speaking was much more difficult that night because she felt that many of the people in the room were angry at her and disliked her personally for speaking out against the prayer.” (Pl. Int. #5 at 9) After the March 7, 2011 meeting and after she filed the law suit, Plaintiff received bullying and intimidating taunts, comments and threats at school, on her way home from school, and on-line. (Pl. Int. #5 5 at 10-14; JA Dep. at 40-44)

At a meeting on the issue, local board members publicly proclaimed their faith and the need for the religious statement. Committee member Traficante identified himself as “a person of faith” and noted that as a coach he made sure to start every game with a prayer with the team. He insisted on preserving the display as part of the “obligation as School Committee members to protect and defend the moral values of our students and that banner helps us to express that[.]” Chairperson Iannazzi’s went further to say that the country “was founded not on freedom from religion but freedom of religion. Each person has the ability to practice whatever religion they want. That does not mean that they have the freedom from religion being practiced.” Obviously, the federal court disagreed.

The school insisted on fighting this well-based challenge despite a long line of cases contradicting the positions of the school board. As the Court noted in Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009), “[b]y accepting a privately donated monument and placing it on city property, a city engages in expressive conduct[.]” It further stressed that a permanent monument is, “by definition, a structure that is designed as a means of expression.”

This girl stood up to not just peers but politicians to fight for the values of separation of church and state. In doing so, she gave her friends a lesson in civic responsibility and gave her school board a lesson in constitutional values. At a time with separation principles under attack, Jessica added a case in the win column for a society where faith is a personal not a public priority.

Congratulations to the lawyers of the Rhode Island ACLU in this important victory and again to Jessica Ahlquist and her parents.

Ahlquistv.CranstonComplaint

Mt. Pleasant is a community of 4,500 residents conveniently located halfway between Nashville, TN and Huntsville, Alabama. It was founded in 1824. Williams is a former executive director of the Mt. Pleasant Community Development Corporation.

Williams has offered to accommodate prayer at any time before 8 a.m. or after 5 p.m. and said “we have no problem with them praying, it’s just they need to do it on their own time.” While the local chaplain agreed, there are those like Shackelford who want to see the praying sessions continue during regular hours, noting “[i]f the fire department and the police department are okay with it … it seems like an unwise decision to interfere if it’s okay with the department heads.”

It appears that Shackelford learned separation of church and state as a public safety issue. The fact that local officials support the entanglement with religion is nothing new. More entanglement cases involve majoritarian religion. It is unlikely that the daily prayer sessions involve Pagans or Rastafarians. The point is that, regardless of the fire safety aspects, such entanglement with religion violates the first amendment of the Constitution.

I would be interested in how Shackelford would accommodate other religions demanding to have prayer sessions in city hall during work hours since, as the Court noted in County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater, Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), it would not tolerate “practices that demonstrate the government’s allegiance to a particular sect or creed.”

Shackelford supported another candidate for manager in the 3-2 vote to hire Williams.

Williams should be commended rather than criticized for reaching an accommodation with the chaplain while maintaining the wall of separation. While separation principles are under attack, this is an example of how little it takes to resolve such problems. While this was not a case of a public official giving a state-approved prayer, the Court has stressed that “we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.” Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). Here citizens who came to City Hall would find employees engaged in a religious practice led by the local church. The advancement of that particular faith is unmistakable. What Williams did in her second week on the job was to balance the desire for prayer against the need for separation. I can’t wait to see what she tackles in her third week on the job.

Source: Columbia Daily Herald

The case is Awad v. Ziriax, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 475 (January 10, 2012). One of the central issues was the claim that virtually no one could challenge the law — an increasingly (and disturbingly) common argument in federal court. In Awad, Oklahoma argued “ that Mr. Awad does not have standing because he has not suffered an actual or imminent injury . . . because the amendment has not taken effect or been interpreted by any Oklahoma court, Mr. Awad’s alleged injuries are necessarily speculative. They further contend that Mr. Awad’s assertion that he will suffer official condemnation of his religion is ‘personal opinion.’” Id. at *14. In upholding standing in the free exercise claim, the Tenth Circuit discussed cases including American Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, 637 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir. 2010) and Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 624 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The Court held that non-economic religious values are sufficient for standing, stating the

“Legislature did not simply adopt a non-binding resolution opposing the consideration or use of Sharia law in state courts, it proposed and the electorate agreed to enshrine such a prohibition in the state’s constitution. Mr. Awad is facing the consequences of a statewide election approving a constitutional measure that would disfavor his religion relative to others. The non-binding city resolution in Catholic League conveyed “a government message,” 624 F.3d at 1048. The Oklahoma amendment conveys more than a message; it would impose a constitutional command.”

The panel went on to examine the free exercise claims and found that “[t]he proposed amendment discriminates among religions,” said the judges. “The Oklahoma amendment specifically names the target of its discrimination. The only religious law mentioned in the amendment is Sharia law.” The state had argued that Sharia law was simply cited as an example of international authority barred under the law, but the panel saw a more sectarian purpose:

But that argument conflicts with the amendment’s plain language, which mentions Sharia law in two places.

First, the amendment instructs Oklahoma courts to “uphold and adhere to . . . if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state [*39] does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions.” Id. at 168 (emphasis added). This language prohibits Oklahoma courts from upholding and adhering to laws of other states that include Sharia law but does not prohibit Oklahoma courts from upholding and adhering to laws of other states that include the laws of any other religion. On this basis alone, application of Larson strict scrutiny is warranted.

Second, the amendment states that Oklahoma “courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law.” Id. (emphasis added). Appellants argue that the word “cultures” should be read to include religious groups, and that the amendment therefore “plainly prohibits the consideration of legal precepts associated with all religious denominations.” Aplt. Supp. Br. at 7. We disagree.

The amendment bans only one form of religious law—Sharia law. Even if we accept Appellants’ argument that we should interpret “cultures” to include “religions,” the text does not ban all religious laws. The word “other” in the amendment modifies both “nations” and “cultures.” Therefore, if we substituted the word “religions” for “cultures,” the amendment would prohibit Oklahoma courts from “look[ing] to the legal precepts of other . . . religions.” The word “other” implies that whatever religions the legislature considered to be part of domestic or Oklahoma culture would not have their legal precepts prohibited from consideration, while all others would. Thus, the second portion of the amendment that mentions Sharia law also discriminates among religions.

Because the amendment discriminates among religions, it is “suspect,” and “we apply strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality.” Larson, 456 U.S. at 246.

That triggers strict scrutiny analysis under Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 255 (1982) See also Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971). The panel further noted:

The proposed amendment goes further than preventing courts from “applying” Sharia law. The amendment forbids state courts from “considering” those laws. See Aplt. App. Vol. 1 at 168. Even if the state could identify and support a reason to single out and restrict Sharia law in its courts, the amendment’s complete ban of Sharia law is hardly an exercise of narrow tailoring. Appellants have not carried their burden to show why the proposed amendment is “closely fitted” to a compelling interest.

The decision could well become an issue in the presidential election which has already seen the demonizing of all things Muslim by some. This site has been quite outspoken in its condemnation of Sharia legal systems. However, this ill-conceived law has accomplished little beyond wasting the money of the people of Oklahoma and tarnishing the image of Oklahoma. Ironically, as I have mentioned before, I have a great deal of affection for Oklahoma. I love visiting the state and I have always found Oklahomans to be incredibly friendly and kind. Yet, the legislature appears obsessed with sectarian and religious measures that leave the impression that the state is intolerant — which is not what I have found in many visits to the state.

It will be interesting if the state now pushes for an en banc, which I think is likely. They could skip the en banc and file directly with the Supreme Court, but I would expect cert would be difficult to secure. While some justices might hold anti-Sharia sentiments, many are not going to like the legislative limitations on what a judge may “consider” in a case (even though various justices have criticized the reliance on international authority in cases like Graham v. Florida). A majority of the justices clearly considered such authority not as binding but as relevant to some cases, writing in Graham:

The Court has treated the laws and practices of other nations and international agreements as relevant to the Eighth Amendment not because those norms are binding or controlling but because the judgment of the world’s nations that a particular sentencing practice is inconsistent with basic principles of decency demonstrates that the Court’s rationale has respected reasoning to support it.

We will be watching for any appeal in the case.

Source: CNN

When asked if “God used evolution to create people,” 73% not only disagreed, but 64% “strongly disagreed.”

The poll of 1,000 American Protestant pastors also found that 74% believe the biblical Adam and Eve were literal people. Thus, roughly three-fourths of pastors believe that God literally began the human race with two actual people in the Garden of Eden.

Once again such polls only show how blasphemers like Bill Nye The Science Guy and scientists continue to live in some fantasy world with their carbon dating, telescopes, and fossils.

Source: CNN

Hundreds of people roll around in the leftovers of Brahmins meals each year. The leftovers are laid on the ground in plantain leaves for lower caste Hindus. The obvious message of the subordination of the lower caste does not appear to deter those of long to roll in food waste of the higher ranked Hindus.

Last month, anti-Snana activist KS Shivaramu was assaulted by supporters of the ritual. Bharatiya Janata Party official and senior minister VS Acharya – a Brahmin – defends the ritual. Below is a video of a fact-finder being assaulted by devotees of the ritual:

The question is whether the government should ban consensual religious rituals that the majority find offensive. I find this ritual one of the most grotesque displays that I have witnessed in the name of religion. However, free exercise means that, so long as a practice is consensual, adults should be allowed to follow their faiths. There are many demeaning acts that I find offensive in other religions. The question is whether rituals furthering stereotypes or castes can be banned on that basis alone.

Source: BBC

Ironically, as soon as Christianity took root, some followers proceeded to shake off their own oppression by turning against others, particularly pagans. One of the most famous was Hypatia who a remarkable woman — Neoplatonist philosopher in Roman Egypt and mathematician. She was murdered by a Christian mob after being accused of causing religious turmoil.

The circle cost just $50,000 but some Christian groups are up in arms over the accommodation of another faith. Yet, Col. Bruno was defiant — and right:

“The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion does not just apply to the mainstream faith groups. It also applies to atheists, secularists, freethinkers and those whose belief systems are usually classified under the umbrella term ‘Earth-centered spirituality,’ . . . A denial of constitutional rights to one threatens the constitutional rights of all.”

My father’s firm, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, built the United States Air Force Academy Cadet Chapel designed by renowned architect Walter Netsch. I grew up with Netsch and his wife Dawn Clark (who later was on my law school faculty when I was a law student) as close family friends and I believe both my Dad and Walter would have been proud of the Air Force for the accommodation extended to all faiths.

Bravo, Col. Bruno, Bravo!

Source: Denver Post as first seen on Reddit.

The victims says that Drumgoogle robbed him at knifepoint in the restaurant’s bathroom and forced the victim to strip in order to keep him giving chase. What I find curious is the kidnapping charge based on the published facts. Some states like North Carolina have a particularly flexible definition of kidnapping:

Article 10. Kidnapping and Abduction.
(a) Any person who shall unlawfully confine, restrain, or remove from one place to another, any other person 16 years of age or over without the consent of such person, or any other person under the age of 16 years without the consent of a parent or legal custodian of such person, shall be guilty of kidnapping if such confinement, restraint or removal is for the purpose of:
(1) Holding such other person for a ransom or as a hostage or using such other person as a shield; or
(2) Facilitating the commission of any felony or facilitating flight of any person following the commission of a felony; or
(3) Doing serious bodily harm to or terrorizing the person so confined, restrained or removed or any other person; or
(4) Holding such other person in involuntary servitude in violation of G.S. 14-43.12.
(5) Trafficking another person with the intent that the other person be held in involuntary servitude or sexual servitude in violation of G.S. 14-43.11.
(6) Subjecting or maintaining such other person for sexual servitude in violation of G.S. 14-43.13.

Based on news accounts, the distance in this case appears quite small. This would seem to allow virtually any crime where a victim is moved to be charged as kidnapping.

In New York, second degree kidnapping is defined simply as “a person is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree when he abducts another person.” However, first degree kidnapping is more restricted and requires,if you are not holding someone for money, for the culprit to “restrain[] the person abducted for a period of more than twelve hours with intent.”

While the police report refers to a kidnapping charge, there is unlawful confinement provisions in New York:

S 135.05 Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree when
he restrains another person.
Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

S 135.10 Unlawful imprisonment in the first degree.
A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree when
he restrains another person under circumstances which expose the latter
to a risk of serious physical injury.
Unlawful imprisonment in the first degree is a class E felony.

It is the definition of restrain that allows for broader application of this latter charge:

“Restrain” means to restrict a person`s movements intentionally and
unlawfully in such manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty
by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in
the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has
been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is
unlawful. A person is so moved or confined “without consent” when such
is accomplished by (a) physical force, intimidation or deception, or (b)
any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim, if he is a
child less than sixteen years old or an incompetent person and the
parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or
custody of him has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement.

I will keep looking for a statutory citation for the charge.

Source: Myrtle Beach as first seen on Reddit.

The disclosure came at an event where Spanish Cardinal Archbishop Antonio Rouco Varela called for a repeal of legislation that provides for abortion on demand and a crusade against same-sex marriage. He serves as the chairman of the Spanish Bishops Conference and the bishops gathered in Madrid under the motto “Christian Family: the hope of Europe.”

During the event, the Bishop of Córdoba, Demetrio Fernández, revealed that “[t]he Minister for Family of the Papal Government, Cardinal Antonelli, told me a few days ago in Zaragoza that UNESCO has a program for the next 20 years to make half the world population homosexual. To do this they have distinct programs, and will continue to implant the ideology that is already present in our schools.”

I have personally searched the rooms of my kids for secret UNESCO literature and propaganda that teachers may have passed along for the implantation process. I feel like a real dummy. I have been spending all of my time monitoring AAA and its TripTik-based gay-centered agenda.

Source: El Pais as first seen on Reddit.

When you contemplate all of the problems that beset us in this election year it is hard not to feel daunted by the task of finding solutions. Many millions of American’s are without jobs, with the prospect of future employment seeming illusory. The top 1% of the American population controls vast amounts of the country’s wealth.  http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1  Wages of average Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years to such an extent that our middle class is shrinking rapidly. The housing boom of years past has become a bust of monumental proportions and foreclosures are destroying formerly viable neighborhoods. Our once barely adequate “safety net” has been shredded and there are attempts to destroy both Social Security and Medicare as we know it. Despite a weak attempt at Medical reform millions of Americans find health care unaffordable, with many dying and others forced into bankruptcy to stay alive. Due to lack of money America’s once magnificent infrastructure is rotting and solutions are not on the horizon.

The collapse and bailout of our banking industry has cost us trillions and appears to have been brought about by fraudulent practices on the part of the industry, yet no one has been indicted. In fact the remuneration of top executives in this duplicitous industry has actually increased. Efforts to impose stiff controls ensuring that these artificial crises don’t happen again and that these huge financial entities do business ethically, have failed to pass the Congress. We see that the fallout from the American banking crisis has undercut the world’s economy and that economic crises in other industrialized nations appear regularly. Please notice I’m only referring to the economic problems we face and only producing a partial list of those economic problems.

We have seemingly come to the conclusion of an unnecessary war in Iraq, where trillions were spent and perhaps a million were killed, yet the withdrawal of troops is to bases that surround Iraq. We are leaving about 40,000 Americans in country, many as mercenaries (contractors is a euphemism) as we support the largest diplomatic infrastructure in any foreign nation. The war in Afghanistan still rages in a land that has never been significantly shaped by any outside empire, this despite the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the virtual destruction of Al Qaeda.  Hundreds of billions are being spent and the lives of our troops are put in danger, in an exercise with little hope of success. Billions are going towards building Afghanistan’s infrastructure as ours is falling apart. Yet these instances fail to raise the broad spectrum of the military/foreign policy problems continuing to plague us. These issues include a military budget that far greater than that of all other nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures 

However, these three paragraphs still do not encompass the broad range of problems we Americans face. There is more to be touched on before we come to the conclusion that I’ve reached, that there is one problem that not only transcends all of these, but its need for immediate solution supersedes any of the others in importance.

On this blog the issue of civil liberties is constantly with us because our host/founder is a distinguished Constitutional Law Professor and Lawyer. Jonathan Turley’s career has been spent fighting for civil liberties and for our freedoms. One result of the tragedy of 9/11 has been the steady erosion of our civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism. The formation of a “Super Agency”, the frighteningly named (on so many levels)  Department of Homeland Security has centralized LEO’s of all levels, both civilian and military intelligence organizations, into an establishment with unprecedented vigilance of American’s daily lives. We have allowed torture, used brainwashing and unlimited preventive detention. This doesn’t fully subsume the efforts made in the losing War on Drugs that has cost hundreds of billions and in fact has proved to be an utter failure. The major drug dealers receive the main benefits via higher profits created by this enforcement. A side effect, but perhaps far more costly has been the phenomenon of our country having the highest incarceration rate in the world. Our incarceration rate is way beyond Russia and China, not to mention other nations whose names are synonymous with oppression. We have literally created a prison industry, with privatization and hiring out of prisoners to work for private industries in virtual chain gangs. This is a return byAmericato indentured servitude and perhaps slavery. As any of our regular readers on this blog know the above merely superficially touches upon the problems we have in ensuring civil liberties and staving off prejudice.

So far I’ve touched on the critical issues we face regarding the economy, the Military/Foreign Policy establishment and on the erosion of our constitutional freedoms. The last area I’d like to briefly explore is that of the encroachment of religion into our political life and the radical new interpretations of Church/State separation it has brought. It is true that in America there has always been a tension between those who wear their religiosity on their metaphoric sleeves and the right of average Americans to live their lives as they see fit. This encompasses the right to believe, or disbelieve as we choose. I grew up in a time when great literary works were banned from our shores, where movies were censored, where an actual husband and wife on a TV show (I Love Lucy) had to be depicted as sleeping in separate beds and when she was obviously pregnant, the word pregnant couldn’t be used. In my native New York State, our Governor’s wife had to established residence in Reno,Nevada in order to divorce him, since divorce was not allowed in New York. This was how far religion already had encroached upon civil life and the lives of ordinary people in times past.

Today we are faced with the specter of religion once again dominating our society. These new religious zealots disdain separation of church and state; re-write history to suit their narrow views; would force a woman to bear children she doesn’t want and enforce their peculiar notions of sin upon all of us. They would resurrect the marginalization of homosexuals via depriving them of their constitutional rights and even go so far as some as suggesting we ban contraception. They raise a legitimate fear of returning us to the “Dark Ages” of only sixty years ago. Sadly, these problems with religious zealots that I’ve enumerated aren’t even a complete catalog of things we should fear by their renewed rise to political power through overwhelming wealth. 

What I propose to you here is that all of these difficult situations, to those who view them as problems, have arisen out of one overarching issue. This is the source for all of those dilemmas detailed above and therefore must be dealt with before all of the others. It is America’s transcendent issue. This is the problem of the influence of wealth upon our political system. All of the evils (to my mind) listed above arise from the power to control government that money gives. Think about that in context of every issue I’ve detailed above and you will see that at its root is the influence of entrenched wealth upon our political system. The economy is a no-brainer. The Military/Security/Industrial Complex, of which Dwight Eisenhower warned, has controlled our military budget and our foreign policy. This interlocking self interest group has required diminishing our civil liberties to justify the money spent on wars and intrusion into foreign affairs, by promoting a climate of fear. They also use unconstitutional intrusion to intimidate and/or punish those who expose their misdeeds. Religious institutions free of taxation and oversight have developed huge war chests to control politicians and ensure that they adhere to certain litmus tests of “putative piety”. 

From lobbying efforts and emoluments offered politicians, to the vital need for campaign financing that politicians rely on to get elected/re-elected, money drives our system. All of the difficulties we face arise because of the influence of wealth upon our political system. Therefore, in my opinion this should be the transcendent issue that must be addressed if we have any hope of making America conform to the vision of our Founding Fathers. While some may argue that I’m belaboring the obvious, I would put to them that nothing else can be changed until we change our laws on campaign financing, lobbying and corporate personhood. In that mix we should ban religious entities, not from their right to freely practice their beliefs, but from the ability to influence politicians through money that is un-taxed. In America everyone should have the right to have their say, but it is intolerable that the opinions of some “elite” citizens prevail because their money is considered “free speech” as was formulated in the SCOTUS case Buckley v. Valeo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo and then recently expanded in the infamous “Citizens United Case”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission .

 An example of “Citizens United” impact was seen this week in Iowa where there were massive infusions of so-called “Super-Pac” money for campaign ads, which changed the dynamic of the Iowa Caucus. The Jack Abramoff lobbying case brought out the sickening details of how politicians were bought and corrupted. Abramoff  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff ) was recently released from a minor jail term, but most of those he was involved with, like the ubiquitous Grover Norquist and Karl Rove were never indicted. That Abramoff is trying to atone for his behavior by speaking out against money in politics, is but a cruel irony of how powerless the system is to deal with its corruption by money. 

My conclusion is that with so many problems to deal with in our country our efforts to bring significant reform must “follow the money”. If we can’t limit the destructive effect of wealth upon our political system, our efforts at dealing with the many other issues destroying our Constitutional government will fail. I believe we must start here. What do you think? Below are links to organizations that have been formed to fight the influence of wealth and to overturn Citizens United. If you agree with me you might check some of them out to see if they are worthy of your support.

http://pac.progressivesunited.org/page/rein-in-influence?sc=google_pac_rein-in-influence_3&gclid=COzhw7HFu60CFUKR7QodoWUI_w

http://democracyisforpeople.org/

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/28/free_speech_for_people_coalition_urges

http://www.movementforthepeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CfAW_ActionToolkit.pdf

http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c 

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

While I normally accept every divine channeling brought to me through the body of Pat Robertson, my faith is a bit shaken by the fact that God told Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry to run. Indeed, Perry is claiming that it is up to God whether he continues past Iowa. That record may be the reason God has not been able to land a pundit contract on Fox or MSNBC. Indeed, Robertson himself was spiritually directed to run in 1988.

By the way, Robertson also eliminated a few disasters for his favorite and recurring theme: our imminent destruction. It turns out the cause is a president who does not reflect the majority’s views. God is not only vengeful but topical.

Here is what God said (and apparently allowed Robertson to release to the public). It turns out that God sounds a lot like Sean Hannity with a slightly deeper voice:

“Your country will be torn apart by internal stress. A house divided cannot stand. Your president holds a radical view of the direction of your country which is at odds with the majority. Expect chaos and paralysis. Your president holds a view which is at the odds with the majority — it’s a radical view of the future of this country, and so that’s why we’re having this division. This is a spiritual battle which can only be won by overwhelming prayer. The future of the world is at stake because if America falls, there’s no longer a strong champion of freedom and a champion of the oppressed of the world. There must be an urgent call to prayer.”

The message could not be more clear or more divine: defeat Obama or burn in the flames of apocalyptic anger.

The group has previously stirred up controversy over what is described as cult-like activities. A site that appears tied to the group explains:

The Samanta Roy Institute of Science & Technology was founded and is headed by Dr. R. C. Samanta Roy, a naturalized American citizen originally from India. The goal of this non-profit organization is to establish a world-class educational institute in the Shawano [Wisconsin] area.

Isaacson is also president of a subsidiary called Yehud-Monosson USA Inc., which owns gasoline stations and convenience stores. It was seeking Chapter 11 status to reorganize. That was changed to a Chapter 7 proceeding after a finding that Yehud-Monosson had acted in bad faith — permitting a trustee to liquidate assets to pay creditors (the ultimate fulfillment of this group’s sense of persecution and conspiracy).

The papers in the case included such observations as the courts being “composed of a bunch of ignoramus, bigoted Catholic beasts that carry the sword of the church.” Dreher is called a “Catholic Knight Witch Hunter” carrying out the orders of the Vatican.

Netts has indicated that the words are Isaacson’s and that she felt “caught in the crosshairs” between ethics requirements and her client’s demands: “I was trying to approach the broader picture for this client.” She insists that she tried to find a lawyer to replace her, but “no one will touch the case.” That is not a very persuasive argument. No lawyer is required to be the mindless mouthpiece of a client. I have severed representation of clients, including a lawyer, who was acting in a fashion disrespectful to the court or to counsel. Notably, Nett, 36, was raised in the group and says that she became a lawyer because Cohen told her Jesus sent him in a vision telling her to go to law school.

Both women were fined $5000 and the arrest warrant was issued when Isaacson did not appear in court. The judge dropped her earlier demand for letters of apology because she found the women “unrepentant.”

The papers suggested that the case was part of a Catholic conspiracy and that court officials were a collection of “dirty Catholics” bent on their destruction.

Another related site, citing Issacson, proclaims “Catholism is NOT a religion but a business.” The website publishes the response of Isaacson to the Court. Here (Isaacson Response) which includes the following statement:

With respect to the reference to Nancy Dreher, the Catholic judge, that statement is indeed true and accurate. In referring to Nancy Dreher as being a “Catholic judge”, it is not referring to being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. It is referring to a mentality and an adherence to a universal creed of White Supremacy. “Catholic” also refers to membership in the universal Christian faith. All Christians have a creed: a belief in the father, son, and holy ghost. They believe that no one has rights to “heaven” except through their dirty book. They hold the patent to “god” and can go to every nation on earth to force their vomit down everyone’s throat. Nancy Dreher cleverly asserts that she is not “Catholic” in the sense that she claims not to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but she cannot deny her “catholic” mentality or catholic Christian origin which dictates a person’s entire life. Only “White Christians” have a right to life, and whether or not any minority has any rights is in the White Christians’ sole discretion. Even now, even though Nancy Dreher was clearly wrong in holding a secret hearing, she still stubbornly asserts she is right. That is the catholic mentality of a Christian. Nancy Dreher certainly is not Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, or Bhuddist [sic]. Nor is she an atheist. If she were an atheist, at least one could expect to see some justice.

Nancy Dreher’s actions speak louder than words as to who she is, what she is, and what she represents.
Thus, every single word in the aforementioned statement is true. No cause for sanction
exists.

In addition to $500 for each infraction, Nett was ordered to take 10 hours of classes in legal ethics over the next year.

Just to make this bizarre picture complete. The judge is not Catholic and, while noting that Isaacson “has absolutely no clue what my religious beliefs are, if any, and it is nobody’s business,” Dreher stated in a footnote that she was “not of any particular faith.”

This is the not first such religiously infused attack on a judge. Convicted church leader Warren Jeffs filed a renewed motion to force the judge to recuse herself. This time, however, the demand came reportedly came from God himself. State District Judge Barbara Walther was told that she should “step away from this abuse of power against a religious and pure faith in the Lord.”

Source: Twin Citiesas first seen on ABA Journal

What is particularly impressive is that 3 million of those viewers were in the last twelve months.

Again, I can only thank you for your friendship and your contributions on our blog. With our emphasis on civil liberties, it is heartening to see so many people from around the world visiting our blog. It is a wonderful reminder that we are not alone in our concern for individual rights and liberty.

Well done, everyone, and congratulations.

We have tried to create something special at this site for the discussion of legal and policy questions in a civil and substantive manner. The success of the blog is due entirely to you. I view posts as merely creating a foundation for broader discussion, much like cases in a law class. It is what you bring to the discussion that makes this blog unique. We will continue to improve the site and I am always interested in suggestions on how to improve the site further. The nice thing about this competition is that it introduces new people to the blog and I hope some of them will decide to stay and contribute to our discussions. More importantly, I needed something to overcome the performance of the Bears this season!

Congratulations to the other winners and competitors in this year’s competition. This competition often allows us to explore the ever widening array of legal blogs and I encourage you to check out some of the other sites among the top 100 blogs.

Thanks again everyone for pushing so hard to help improve the blog and to secure this top spot.

This is the same group of men who, in March 2002, were accused by parents and witnesses of killing 14 young girls who died of burns or smoke asphyxiation by a fire in their public school in Mecca. The religious police reportedly forcibly prevented girls from escaping the burning school by locking the doors of the school and barring firemen from entering because the girls were not properly covered. They feared physical contact with firemen and police might be sexual enticement.

The latest crackdown includes rules that all-female stores must be blocked from the view of men to avoid passing enticement or excitement.

Thousands of women have applied for the open jobs. In the meantime, the religious police are also promising to crackdown on any interaction of female and male employees, who are supposed to be segregated in department stores with male and female areas.

When Sheikh Motlab al Nabet wakes up screaming at night with frights, this is what he hears . . .

Source: Arab News as first seen on Reddit

Cook is a member of the secret internal organization called Sea Org. Her email reveals that the Church as amassed an alleged $1 billion in foreign accounts and objects that the relentless drive to force contributions from members contradicts the teachings of Hubbard. She also alleges that David Miscavige, who has led the Church of Scientology for 26 years, has dismantled the structure left by Hubbard for the organization in amassing power. Miscavige is often mentioned by dissidents as an autocrat who showers celebrities like Tom Cruise with gifts and adoring servants on visits.

The alleged amassing of wealth stand in sharp contrast to claims of former members that they lived in virtual slave conditions.

Cook alleges that “[c]urrently, membership monies are held as Int reserves and have grown to well in excess of a billion dollars. Only a tiny fraction has ever been spent, in violation of the policy above. Only the interest earned from the holdings have been used very sparingly to fund projects through grants.” In response, the Church sent out a statement “Ms Cook’s opinions reflect a small, ignorant and unenlightened view of the world today. They are not shared by the thousands of Scientologists who are overjoyed by our 27 new churches and what they mean to the communities they serve.”

What is most striking about this dispute is that Cook remains part of the Church as opposed to the former members who have sued the Church or denounced it as a cult. It is also notable in the details since the Church continues to have problems in Europe with countries that view it as a commercial or even a criminal enterprise designed to extract fees from members who pay to go to higher and higher levels of consciousness or awareness as Scientologists.

Source: Guardian

The sacrifice occurred in the state of Chhattisgarh. Two men were arrested in the crime.

Occasionally victims are found at temples in India after being sacrificed by witchdoctors.

Such a crime is truly incomprehensible for most of us. What is particularly astonishing is not just the religious faith in human sacrifice, but the purpose: better crops. These killers not only decided to kill a child but do it to increase crop yield. The sheer depravity of the act is breathtaking.

Source: Yahoo

Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger

Augusta State University (ASU) of Georgia was taken to court by a clinical psychology student, Jennifer Keeton, who refused to do coursework necessary for completing her degree.  The coursework in question dealt with LGBTQ population.  ”In her brief, Keeton describes herself as a Christian who is committed to the truth of the Bible, including what she believes are its teachings on human nature, the purpose and meaning of life, and the ethical standards that govern human conduct. She holds several beliefs about homosexuality that she views as arising from her Christian faith. She believes that ‘sexual behavior is the result of personal choice for which individuals are accountable, not inevitable deterministic forces; that gender is fixed and binary (i.e., male or female), not a social construct or personal choice subject to individual change; and that homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle,’ not a ‘state of being.’” ASU’s officials became aware that Keeton held these beliefs when she expressed to professors in class and fellow classmates in and out of class that she believed that the GLBTQ population suffers from identity confusion, and that she intended to attempt to convert students from being homosexual to heterosexual. Keeton also said that it would be difficult for her to work with GLBTQ clients and to separate her views about homosexuality from her clients’ views. Further, in answering a hypothetical posed by a faculty member, Keeton responded that as a high school counselor confronted by a sophomore student in crisis, questioning his sexual orientation, she would tell the student that it was not okay to be gay. Similarly, Keeton told a fellow classmate that, if a client discloses that he is gay, it was her intention to tell the client that his behavior is morally wrong and then try to change the client’s behavior, and if she were unable to help the client change his behavior, she would refer him to someone practicing conversion therapy.”  Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 10-13925, D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-00099-JRH-WLB (Dec. 16, 2011)

This raises some interesting questions concerning free speech, free exercise and educational and professional accreditation.

Jennifer Keeton

Keeton’s stance is not only out of line with the prevailing views of homosexuality as expressed by the American Psychological Association (APA), but it runs afoul of the guidelines set forth in the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) Code of Ethics, which ASU was required to adopt and teach in order to offer a counseling program accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP).  To resolve this problem, ASU put Keeton into a remediation program before she could participate in the program’s clinical practicum, in which she would have engaged in one-on-one counseling with a student.   The remediation plan was to help Keeton learn how to comply with the ACA Code of Ethics and improve her “ability to be a multiculturally competent counselor, particularly with regard to working with [GLBTQ] populations.”  Remediation is not a disciplinary action.  As one ASU official described it, a remediation plan is “a plan to deal with the professional part of the curriculum that goes across the program, goes across classes. It’s a plan that is devised with students in order to help students to grow professionally in areas of weakness.”

The ASU student handbook states that students can be placed  on “remediation status” when a “student’s progress is not satisfactory on interpersonal or professional criteria unrelated to academic performance.”   As in Keeton’s case, the student then receives a remediation plan “outlining the faculty’s concerns” and “delineat[ing] what conditions the student must meet to be removed from remediation status.”  Keeton was warned that failure to complete the remediation would result in her being dismissed from the program.  After agreeing to the remediation, Keeton was allowed to participate in the program’s clinical practicum.  Soon thereafter, Keeton withdrew from the clinical practicum, stating, “I am not going to agree to a remediation plan that I already know I won’t be able to successfully complete.”

Rather than complete the remediation so she could complete the required clinical practicum for her degree, Jennifer Keeton filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that requiring her to complete the remediation plan violated her First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights.   Keeton also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to  prevent ASU’s officials from dismissing her from the program if she did not complete the remediation plan.

The Georgia courts denied her request for preliminary injunction, stating that Keeton had not met the first requirement for granting such an injunction - establishing a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with respect to her free speech and free exercise claims.  The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed to lower court’s ruling.

The school did not say Keeton could not practice her religion or say what she likes, but rather said that by refusing to treat LGBTQ patients under accepted professional guidelines that she was not fulfilling the educational requirements for the degree she sought.  Consider an alternative situation: a geography student who believes in the Flat Earth Theory and refuses to teach anything else as part of their teaching practicum in pursuit of their Ph.D.  Surely the school is reasonable in withholding a degree from said person when they allow their personal beliefs to interfere with their course work required for completion of the degree, but especially when said belief contradicts the scientific consensus within the field?  Not challenge mind you.  Contradict.  To challenge a fact is to dispute it as being unjust, invalid, or outmoded.  Dispute means to argue to the contrary or alternative.  Contradict means to imply the opposite or a denial of fact.  When dealing with scientific facts, like any finding of fact, disputing them is part of the fact finding process but it must be based on evidence, not belief.  Keeton presented no evidence for her beliefs, only the assertion that because that’s what she believes, it must be true.

Do you think Keeton would have been sanctioned so if she had merely presented her beliefs as an alternative instead of an absolute?  Do you think Keeton’s treatment by ASU was fair, both in their administration of policy and adherence to educational standards of the field?  Do you think that the court was correct in their finding that  Keeton had failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with respect to her free speech and free exercise claims?

What do you think?

Source(s): Daily Kos, UC-Davis, Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley (.pdf)

Kudo to Otteray Scribe for pointing out this story.

~Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) sees a war on religion being waged by the elitist, secular Left. Paul claims the “separation of church and state” is a phrase taken out of context from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. According to Paul, courts have misread and distorted the meaning of the first amendment so that children are banned from praying in school, courthouses are prohibited from displaying the Ten Commandments, and citizens are prevented from praying before football games.

From Paul’s congressional website, he claims that the “separation” doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802.” Taking a phrase out of context from a letter containing only five sentences is going to be a tough argument to support. Jefferson wrote:

… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

This seems straightforward and self-contained. Jefferson is saying that the establishment and free exercise clauses build a wall of separation. The “taken out of context” argument is not supported. The “taken out of context” argument is simply a dismissive, throw-away line to a devastatingly inconvenient historical fact.

In The War on Religion, Paul writes:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.

Besides Jefferson, the writings of other founding fathers have expressed similar sentiments regarding the separation of church and state. In Detached Memoranda, James Madison wrote:

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.

In a letter to Edward Livingston, Madison wrote:

Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

In The War on Religion, Paul continues:

Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

The number of references to God in the Constitution: zero. Paul must use a different definition of “replete.” The references to “Nature’s God” and “their Creator” in the Declaration of Independence appeal to Deists, Unitarians, as well as Christians.

In The War on Religion, Paul also writes:

Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility.

The moral support of slavery, provided by Southern churches, gives lie to this statement. Churches don’t teach morality, they exist to support their parishioners who, in turn, support the church.

In 1773, Rev. Isaac Backus, a Baptist preacher and leading orator of the American Revolution, advocated for the separation of church and state by saying:

And where these two kinds of government [ecclesiastical and civil], and the weapons which belong to them, are well distinguished. and improved according to the true nature and end of their institution. the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued;

There is a war, but it is not a war on religion, it is a war on the separation of church and state. Those who want to impose religious law, be it sharia or Mosaic, on all citizens must first tear down the wall of separation. They are chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s heritage of separation.

While Glenn Greenwald highlights several admirable Paul policy positions and, while any candidate is a compromise with our own personal policy concepts, the separation of church and state is up near the top of my can’t-compromise list. Religion limits civil liberties for imaginary reasons. The surest way to lose many of our cherished civil liberties is to end the separation of church and state and let religious leaders determine the rules.

H/T: Theocracy Watch.

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger

Earlier in the month, Cardinal Francis George of the Archdiocese of Chicago angered gay rights activists by making an unfortunate comparison between the gay rights movement and the Ku Klux Klan.  “Cardinal Francis George, the Archbishop of Chicago, this week told a Chicago news station that he agreed with a local Roman Catholic church’s objections to the city’s recently-adjusted Gay Pride Parade route passing by its doors and warned that the parade could “morph into the Ku Klux Klan.”  George made the comment Sunday on Fox Chicago when asked about Our Lady of Mount Carmel’s complaints that the parade passing by its Belmont Avenue location would force the church to cancel its morning mass. The church recently launched a petition urging the city to force parade organizers to adjust their plans.  “I go with the pastor,” George told Fox. “He’s telling us that he won’t be able to have services on Sunday if that’s the case. You don’t want the gay liberation movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism.”‘ Huffington Post

If you were like me when you read Cardinal George’s words, you may have guessed that he was misquoted or taken out of context.  Unfortunately for the Cardinal, he was given a chance to retrace his words, but instead of doing the Christian thing, he repeated his comments which I consider a slur.  “When the Fox host pointed out that George’s comparison was “a little strong,” the cardinal stood by his statement.  “It is, but you take a look at the rhetoric,” he continued. “The rhetoric of the Ku Klux Klan, the rhetoric of some of the gay liberation people. Who is the enemy? Who is the enemy? The Catholic Church.”  The cardinal’s comments came a matter of days before the Gay Pride Parade organizers announced Wednesday that the pride start time, originally pushed back to 10 a.m. in an effort to curb public drinking, overcrowding and other safety hazards, would revert back to noon in order to stay clear of the church’s Sunday mass, according to the Windy City Times.”  Huffington Post

I know everyone is human and can make mistakes, but Cardinal George has not admitted that his comparison was a mistake.  “George — who initially backed off his incendiary comparison — is doubling down on his remarks in a written statement:

“The Chicago Gay Pride Parade has been organized and attended for many years without interfering with the worship of God in a Catholic church,” George wrote. “When the 2012 Parade organizers announced a time and route change this year, it was apparent that the Parade would interfere with divine worship in a Catholic parish on the new route. When the pastor’s request for reconsideration of the plans was ignored, the organizers invited an obvious comparison to other groups who have historically attempted to stifle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church. One such organization is the Ku Klux Klan which, well into the 1940′s, paraded through American cities not only to interfere with Catholic worship but also to demonstrate that Catholics stand outside of the American consensus. It is not a precedent anyone should want to emulate.  “It is terribly wrong and sinful that gays and lesbians have been harassed and subjected to psychological and even physical harm. These tragedies can be addressed, however, without disturbing the organized and orderly public worship of God in a country that claims to be free. I am grateful that all parties concerned resolved this problem by moving the Parade’s start time so as not to conflict with the celebration of Mass that Sunday.”  Think Progress

I included the full statement from the Think Progress article in order to provide the full context of the Cardinal’s statement.  I have a few questions after reading these disturbing comments from the head of the Catholic Archdiocese.  Why would the local parish have to cancel its Sunday mass?  Aren’t other events held on Sunday at the same time as the Gay Pride parade’s original start time?  Why couldn’t the Mass proceed as usual?  In one breath Cardinal George complains that having a parade would disturb the “public worship of God in a country that claims to be free”.  I guess in the Cardinal’s world, only Catholics have the right to gather on a Sunday morning at 10:00 am.

I think the good Cardinal needs to take a refresher course in recent American History.  The Ku Kluk Klan did indeed attempt to harass and abuse Catholics and Jews and Blacks, but the last time I checked, nowhere in the LGBT movement is it suggested that gays should block Catholics in their attempts to gather and worship on Sundays!  All Cardinal George had to say was that he was grateful that an arrangement had been made to return the parade time to Noon.   Cardinal George to his credit did comment that the LGBT community has been harassed and abused and called that harassment sinful.  Has Cardinal George forgotten when he and his priests refused to offer Communion to LGBT members?

“After Chicago Cardinal Francis E. George denied the Eucharist to protesters wearing rainbow sashes on Pentecost Sunday, he and several gay activists said the problem wasn’t that the protesters were identifying themselves as homosexual but that they were using the Eucharist for a political statement.  “When you come with a statement about yourself, that’s not the way to receive it,” said Cardinal George in an interview on the “Catholic Community of Faith” radio show May 28, two days before about a dozen members or supporters of the gay activist Rainbow Sash Movement were refused Communion at Chicago’s Holy Name Cathedral.”  Catholic News

I guess it is a political statement to Cardinal George to wear the rainbow sashes to church.  It would seem to me that it would be reasonable to claim that Cardinal George has a problem co-existing with the LGBT community and this latest episode is just icing on the cake. What do you think?

My final question to Cardinal George is, What Would Jesus Do?

The World Trade Center cross was discovered in the debris of the collapsed buildings by construction worker Frank Silecchia who declared “it’s an act of God.” The cross was removed from the debris pile, erected on a concrete pedestal, and placed nearby in a prominent position during the years of reconstruction. During the removal, Fr. Brian Jordan, a Roman Catholic Franciscan priest, blessed the cross with holy water. In june, 2002, Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, the Vatican’s third-highest-ranking cleric, and New York’s Cardinal Edward Egan participated in a ceremony at the cross.

Jordan wants the cross to be part of the WTC memorial because most of the victims were Christian and the plurality of those were Catholic, and most of the rescue workers were Catholic.

The efforts of the Catholic Church to promote a random piece of debris to a Catholic icon is a stroke of advertising genius. The media coverage of Jordan’s blessing and the Vatican ceremony is worth millions in free publicity. However, the efforts to include the cross as part of the memorial have failed. The cross will be displayed to a far smaller audience in the museum.

Jordan has been quoted saying the WTC cross “… stands as our symbol of hope, our symbol of faith, our symbol of healing.” The ability of the human mind to associate natural occurrences with familiar objects is called pareidolia. A naturally occurring debris cross, with its simple shape, would not be unexpected. As a matter of fact, several of these debris crosses were found in the rubble.

If the debris cross was a natural occurrence, then its elevation to the level of a Christian icon is a pure fabrication of man, and the motives behind the elevation must be considered. Icons have long played a tangible role in religions whose gods are hidden from our senses. Icons simply highlight the problem of divine hiddenness.

If the debris cross was a supernatural occurrence, then God has the ability to control the physical forces necessary to create and place the cross in the debris field. Therefore, God also had the ability to prevent the 9/11 attacks, and chose not to do so. This leads to questions regarding the presence of evil, which has long posed a problem for Christian apologists, and still does.

At the base of the cross is a plaque saying the cross is “a sign of comfort for all.” It is a sign of discomfort to those who value rationality.

H/T: Pharyngula, Snopes, Snopes, Gotham Gazette, American Atheists, James Croft, The Guardian, 9/11 Memorial.