The good people at Hezbollah are offering the world another insight into extremist thought. The militant group has banned “The Diary of Anne Frank” from schools as Zionist propaganda by focusing on the plight of some Jews. I suppose when you are teaching kids to blow up innocent people, an account of an innocent victim can appear propagandistic.

What is striking is that the censorship occurred not over the book but simple excerpts from the book shown to school children in a private English-language school in western Beirut. That led to a shrill attack from Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television channel, which asked how long Lebanon would “remain an open arena for the Zionist invasion of education.”

Hezbollah MP Hussein Hajj Hassan criticized the school for exposing the children to a story about a suffering Jewish girl: “These respected, established schools are teaching the so-called tragedy this girl lived, and yet they are ashamed to teach the tragedy of the Lebanese people, the tragedy of the Palestinian people… the tragedy of the people of the south under the hands of Zionist occupation.”

Notably, the Lebanese routinely prevent citizens from reading unapproved material through its censorship bureau, which actually blanked out the chapter in this textbook. However, a student purchased a book privately that had the chapter, which was shown to other students.

There is even a committee for “the ban of Zionist products” that called for the removal of the book. Attorney Naim Kalaani of the committee says that showing the book is a crime. What a wonderful role for a lawyer — criminalizing free speech and possession of a classic book.

For the full story, click here.

An evangelical Christian kindergarten teacher has sued Texas to contest the state’s right to require her to submit to fingerprinting. Pam McLaurin, however, is not alleging privacy or contractual violations. She is alleging that fingerprinting is the Mark of the Beast foretold in the Book of Revelations and thus violates her religious beliefs. It turns out that the Beast has laid the foundations for its Kingdom on Earth in the Texas Education Agency.

McLaurin is challenging the requirement of fingerprinting to get her certification under state law as part of a background check. She has already taught at the Big Sandy School District in Dallardsville for 20 years.

Her complaint states that “[McLaurin] does not believe that it is just coincidence that Revelations speaks about only those with the ‘mark on his forehead or finger’ will be able to buy or sell, since only those teachers that comply with the fingerprinting requirements will maintain their jobs.” She specifically cites Revelations 13:16-17 and 14:9-11.

Let’s go to the source, shall we?

Revelations 13:16-17 states:

16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,

17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Revelations 14:9-11 states:

And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”

Now, from personal experience in teaching, I can say that the passage “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image” is a reference to the tenure and promotion process.

The good thing is that the Bible does allow for unspecified damages and declaratory and injunctive relief from the defendants, including the Texas Education Agency, Texas State Board of Educator Certification, Commissioner Robert Scott and Associate Commissioner Jerel Booker. That is so much more practical that wiping them out with the jawbone of an ass. (Judges 15:14-17)

Of course, McLaurin’s theory would indicate that she is working for an agency already in league with the Beast. The decision of the Beast to use the TEA was a brilliant ploy. Notably, its website does contain a suspicious “StarChart” program and a mysterious project called the Texas Tomorrow Fund — one can only wonder what tomorrow will bring.

Now, I do not want to freak anyone out, but I have looked more closely at this Texas-style TEA beast. It cannot be an accident that the recommended temperature for white tea is 66 C or that it was introduced in places like Korea in 661, here. Indeed, there are the strange rock outcroppings called “The Devil’s Tea Table,” here, and even Devil’s Tea recipes, here. One has to be blind to miss the signs.

By the way, McLaurin’s claim is not unique. Her case is similar to a lawsuit by a group of Michigan farmers, some of them Amish, challenging rules requiring the tagging of. Amish farmers have contested the required use of RFID chips on livestock as the mark of the Beast (on beasts), here. A judge, however, recently dismissed that claim, here.

In the interests of full disclosure, I have also alleged discovery of the Biblical beast and the marking of hands in a prior column.

Now here is the Biblical kicker. Wayne Haglund, the lawyer for the Big Sandy Independent School District, actually supports McLaurin in her claim and believes that she has a legitimate religious claim. He insists that the district is “caught in the crossfire” of having to carry out the state law. So let me get this straight. Haglund believes that it is a legitimate and protected religious practice to believe that fingerprinting is a sign of the Beast and thus a teacher or potential teacher can decline to be checked in a computer system for felons. This is the case even though that Bible actually states that “The second beast of Revelation 13 will cause ‘all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads.” Fingerprinting does not leave a mark on your hand or forehead. It leaves it on a piece of paper that is then digitized. Under this bizarre interpretation, any ink, lotion, or impression left by McLaurin’s fingers could constitute a sign of the Beast. However, she is willing to take a photo and presumably a optic scanner or other imagining picture. Thus, what if the state simply takes a picture of her fingerprints directly on a digitized scanner? How is that different from asking her to take a high-resolution picture?

As we saw recently, some teachers are objecting to the required submission of DNA material for employment, here. While this objection is made on privacy (and logic) grounds, would McLaurin view DNA samples as a sign of the Beast?

Ironically, the resistance to large data banks of tracking and identification information is being opposed by liberals and evangelicals — albeit for vastly different reasons:

Privacy, however, remains a better basis for opposing some government intrusions than lunacy. How an image left on a paper is a credible belief of a mark left on a body is beyond me. While the school district may find this a credible claim, I doubt the courts would give it any more credence than the Amish farmers seeking to prevent farm beasts from being given the Sign of the Beast.

For the story, click here.

Secularists are often blamed by religious figures for everything from hurricanes to teen pregnancies. Now, it appears that secularists are also responsible for religious extremism and, oh yes, the demise of Western Civilization and Europe as we know it. No, this is not the latest religious tirade from Tony Blair. It is Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks of Aldgate, who clearly pinned the blame for the demise of Europe on those who hold secularist views. Lord Sacks, 61, is Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth since 1991.

Lord Sacks insists that the rise of secularism has diminished the influence of “tolerant religion” which he compares to the rise of fundamentalism — an apparent reference to Islam. In an annual lecture to the think-tank Theos in London, he noted that Europe was the world’s most secular region and the only one experiencing population decline. This, he suggested, is due to the fact that religion pushes family and parenthood. The result of the rise of secularism, he explained, is a drop in population which is being overwhelmed by fundamentalist immigrants. It also has created dangerous “relativism” due to people who are no longer following the direction of religious leaders like himself.

However, he is most concerned about production of Judeo-Christian babies. Religion, he insists, means bigger families which means more people to resist the threat of fundamentalism: “Wherever you turn today – Jewish, Christian or Muslim – the more religious the community, the larger on average are their families.”

He also accused secularists of having no sense of sacrifice and duty — for that, it appears, you need God: “In that [secular] culture, where will you find space for the concept of sacrifice for the sake of generations not yet born? Europe is dying, exactly as Polybius said about ancient Greece in the third pre-Christian century.”

He added: “Albert Camus once said, ’The only serious philosophical question is why should I not commit suicide? I think he was wrong. The only serious philosophical question is, why should I have a child? Our culture is not giving an easy answer to that question.”

Lord Sacks holds to a rather old saw: that Western Civilization is doomed without a religious foundation. He ties that view to a more concrete notion that it all comes down to the population numbers — whoever has the most kids wins. It is not really the size of your population but the size of your ideas that ultimately prevails in history. The Mongols had a large population and a successful army but left little cultural or political influence on history despite actual conquests. The Visigoths and other cultures left an equally light historical footprint. Was it for lack of faith or the lack of civilizing values?

Our principles will prevail because they are right and tied to basic human needs for free speech, association, and, yes, religion. Ironically, those who advocate faith-based politics like Blair and Obama are threatening those values by aligning themselves with the force of intolerance like Egypt, here. The Chief Rabbi should be more concerned about the growing sacrifice of free speech on the altar of religion than how we need to drop our secular values if we want to survive.

He ends with this dire warning:

“Let me be blunt. Either we win or the fundamentalists win and that is the challenge. If the fundamentalists win, I wouldn’t hang around too long.”

Secularists might not be too aggrieved if Lord Sacks did not hand around too long.

For the full story, click here.h

The gay-rights movement has suffered a harsh defeat at the hands of voters in Maine. The voters repealed a law that allowed for same-sex marriage — reducing the states allowing same-sex marriage or civil unions. Maine is now the 31st state to reject same-sex marriage. [The two men on the state seal are now strictly prohibited from marrying each other in the State of Maine].

With most polls reporting, 53 percent of voters had approved the repeal. At the same time, a liberal measure passed with voters expanding the state’s 10-year-old medical marijuana law — keeping Maine as the third state with New Mexico and Rhode Island allowing marijuana dispensaries. Thirteen states have legalized medical marijuana.

Notably, the other states — Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont — have legalized same-sex marriage through court rulings and legislative action. No state has passed a same-sex measure by popular vote.

The only hopeful news is that the vote was relatively close. One has to wonder how President Obama might have made a difference if he supported the law. Obama declined to even state support for the law or a similar campaign in Washington state and Kalamazoo. Obama appears to have forgotten his campaign promises to the gay community to fight for their rights. Even after a year in office, the Administration has yet to even end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy — something that Obama can do unilaterally. With such a close vote in Maine, the President’s support might have made the difference.

Personally, while I support recognizing marriage for gay couples as an alternative, I remain convinced that the best approach is for all couples to register civil unions with the states and leave the term “marriage” to individual religions to define, here.

For the full story, click here

A Saudi court has reviewed and upheld the sentence of a 22-year-old man to be beheaded and crucified for the raping of five children. It is the latest medieval measure from the Saudi Sharia courts.

There is little sympathy of the man who was found guilty of raping five children and leaving one to die in the desert.

However, Saudi Arabia continues to mete out cruel and unusual forms of punishment. In this case, the body of the man will be displayed in public, a practice that has previously caused international expressions of outrage and disgust, here and here.

For the full story, click here.

In Bryan, Texas, people are flocking to see the image of the Virgin Mary found in a bird dropping on a truck mirror. It appears that Salvador Pachuca examines all of his bird droppings before washing his truck and found a divine rendition of the Virgin of Guadalupe in bird poop.

One woman observed “As soon as I looked at it, it just gave me chills all over my body. I was like, I just couldn’t believe it.”

Cristal Pachuca explained that “It’s just something special to us and she’s the one who appears when a miracle happens.” Either that or it appears when a car wash is about to happen.

Nevertheless, Cristal says that “we just all feel protected. It’s a blessing to our family and to everybody that comes to see it.” They have removed the mirror to leave it in a protected place of reverence.

Of course, this is still better than the image found in grill grease, here and here and here.

For the picture and story, click here.

Dan Delong, an English teacher at Southwestern High School in Piasa, Illinois has been suspended for allegedly allowing students in his English classes to read an article about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. The article that Delong allegedly had his class read was published in a 2006 edition of “The Gay Animal Kingdom” and is available at http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom.

The article by Lehrer explores the work of people like Joan Roughgarden, a biology professor at Stanford University who challenges Darwinian sexual selection by documenting more than 450 animal species that engage in homosexual behaviors. An estimated 450 species exhibit such proclivities, here. She explained:

“When I was at that gay pride parade. I was just stunned by the sheer magnitude of the LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] population. Because I’m a biologist, I started asking myself some difficult questions. My discipline teaches that homosexuality is some sort of anomaly. But if the purpose of sexual contact is just reproduction, as Darwin believed, then why do all these gay people exist? A lot of biologists assume that they are somehow defective, that some developmental error or environmental influence has misdirected their sexual orientation. If so, gay and lesbian people are a mistake that should have been corrected a long time ago. But this hasn’t happened. That’s when I had my epiphany. When scientific theory says something’s wrong with so many people, perhaps the theory is wrong, not the people.”

Students have rallied around Delong, here.

These were high school students, who are supposed to be exposed to different views and theories. Do you consider the material still “inappropriate” for high school students?

For the full story, click here.

New York prosecutors are dealing with an attempted honor killing of a different sort. We have been following such cases on this blog, but Rabia Sarwar, 37, may be category unto herself after she allegedly slit her husband’s throat after he forced by her to eat pork, wear short skirts and drink alcohol slashed.

Born in Pakistan, Sarwar used a kitchen knife to try to kill Seikh Naseem while he slept. The high school teacher woke being attack and allegedly hearing Sarwar screaming “It’s time for you to die!”

She has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder and insists that her husband’s sacrilegious practices constitute abuse. The defense is a religiously based abused woman syndrome claim: “He made me do so many things that are against Islam. I did all that just to make him happy but inside me there was a war.”

She admits that her husband’s survival was not for lack of trying on her part: “I did my best to cut his throat. But the next moment he jumped on me and grabbed me.”

Her husband was no longer religious and, to make matters worse for her, one of his favorite writers was Salman Rushdie.

For the full story, click here and here.

Note to self: have kids skip the Vatican this Halloween. Pope Benedict XVI has joined Kimberly Daniels at the Christian Broadcasting Network in issuing his own warning against Christians participating in Halloween. The Pope wants Catholics to know that the holiday is dangerous to not just their waistline but their eternal souls.

The Vatican has issued a statement denouncing Halloween as “anti-Christian” and “dangerous.”

In an article entitled ‘The Dangerous Messages of Halloween’, the Vatican’s official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, lays out the soul-sucking dangers of the holiday. Liturgical expert Joan Maria Canals warns “Halloween has an undercurrent of occultism and is absolutely anti-Christian.”

Canals suggests that parents “be aware of this and try to direct the meaning of the feast towards wholesomeness and beauty rather than terror, fear and death.”

The church is suggesting a nice distraction for the kids like a mass or prayer vigil. I may give that a try Saturday night and suggest it with the kids, but if you do not see any postings on Sunday morning, you will know why.

Of course, there is still some room for dress up at such masses:

For the story, click here.

With many of us preparing for Halloween on Saturday, we have a disturbing warning from Kimberly Daniels on the Christian Broadcasting Network’s Web site: demons (real demons) have contaminated Halloween candy to invade the souls of our children (and presumably late-night candy stealing parents).

It turns out that the demonic vehicle is the candy — the clever little minions of Satan

The demon bulletin told readers:

During this period demons are assigned against those who participate in the rituals and festivities. These demons are automatically drawn to the fetishes that open doors for them to come into the lives of human beings. For example, most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches.

She continues to warn:

Curses are sent through the tricks and treats of the innocent whether they get it by going door to door or by purchasing it from the local grocery store. The demons cannot tell the difference. . . .

[M]ost of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches. I do not buy candy during the Halloween season. Curses are sent through the tricks and treats of the innocent whether they get it by going door to door or by purchasing it from the local grocery store. The demons cannot tell the difference.

It can also result in weight gain. The inclusion of the witches praying over the candy at the Hershey plant is a closely held industry secret. It was only revealed briefly during labor talks over their contract and their insistence that the sandwich truck include eyes of newt and that they take off for Satanic holidays. (You know the best thing about witch employees: they always wear hats around the food preparation areas).

Robertson himself has long denounced Halloween as a “Satanic ritual” and insisted that “we ought to close Halloween down.”

Daniels carries the same torch against the holiday, insisting

Halloween is much more than a holiday filled with fun and tricks or treats. It is a time for the gathering of evil that masquerades behind the fictitious characters of Dracula, werewolves, mummies and witches on brooms. The truth is that these demons that have been presented as scary cartoons actually exist. I have prayed for witches who are addicted to drinking blood and howling at the moon.

Ok, we might have to skip the Daniels house this year.

Now here is a scary alternative to candy:

CBN has removed the blog but here is the original text.

Ahmed Muhamed Dore is 112 and has 18 children by five wives. However, this week he added a sixth wife, Safia Abdulleh, 17. The marriage was blessed under the Islamic traditions of the area. It is part of a disturbing trend of cases where young girls are married off to older men under Sharia law.

By past measures, Safia is an older woman, here, here, here, here.

While Safia is old enough to be his great-great-grand-daughter, the groom insisted that he watched her grow up and wooed her: “I didn’t force her, but used my experience to convince her of my love; and then we agreed to marry,.” That’s right, most 17-year-old girls dream of marrying someone over a century old.

For the full story, click here.

In light of today’s conviction of the Church of Scientology in France, this story from Australia may be of interest. The Church is being accused of actively subverting an investigation into the death of Australian private Edward Alexander McBride. The Church allegedly ordered that McBride’s “auditing file” be sent to the United States before the arrival of a warrant from coroner John Lock.

McBride had completed a $25,000 Scientology course shortly killing himself. The Church refused to supply evidence to the coroner in a case that many are analogizing to other cases like that of Lisa McPherson where the Church resisted demands for information.

Coroner John Lock found that “something unusual happened” to McBride and wanted to see his file. Shortly before his death, Church members repeatedly called him on his cell phone and sent text and voice messages mentioning an “audit” and “LRH” – a reference to Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.

Australian Church of Scientology spokeswoman Vicki Dunstan said the audit file was returned to the “mother church” in the US and would not be of any use to investigators.

For the story, click here.

Given the recent refusal of a Scientology spokesman to discuss the basis of Church’s beliefs, we are unlikely to get much of a response on the conviction this week of the Church for fraud in Paris. The court convicted the Church and fined it more than 600,000 euros ($900,000). However, the court stopped short in banning the group entirely as demanded by the government.

Six Scientology leaders were convicted of fraud in a case that looked at the Church’s long controversial methods of getting followers to contribute increasing amounts of money. It also found that the Church engaged in “commercial harassment” of recruits.

Prosecutors wanted a ban and even larger fine, but the Court said that the Church would likely continue to operate outside of the law if banned.

Scientology spokeswoman Agnes Bron called the verdict “an Inquisition of modern times.” He might have said it is a modern version of being tied to a volcano and blown up with H-Bombs by a galactic warlord — but that is precisely what Scientology spokesmen decline to discuss on principle, here.

In the case, prior followers alleged that they were systematically bilked through escalating charges for “purification packages” and other material.

What will be interesting is how this case impacts the ongoing efforts to ban the Church as a cult or a criminal enterprise in some countries. In the very least, it is likely to inspire other such lawsuits in the future. Recent cases include an allegation that the Church is hampering a criminal investigation in Australia, here.

For the full story, click here and here.

I guess Black Sabbath will skip that tour in Iran. The Iranian government has arrested a dozen people for “promoting satanism” through underground music and “blasphemous video clips.” Fortunately, the Obama Administration recently supported a resolution supporting Muslim countries in establishing a “balancing” of free speech and respect for religion, here.

Iran has promised to prosecute “indecent Western-inspired movements” such as rappers. Last May, 104 “devil worshippers” were arrested at one party alone.

It appears that the “church lady” (known as the Mosque lady in Iran) has been enlisted by the Iranian police to look for satanism in popular culture:

For the story, click here

The Islamic al-Shabaab militia is well known for its harsh application of Sharia law in Somalia. However, it turns out that they have the same concerns about the children growing up with the wrong priorities and values as do people in the West. In the case of the al-Shabaab, the problem is a failure of parents to teach children to use weapons and their insistence on educating them on such things as reading and writing. The militia group is now forcing children to watch executions and giving away prizes of automatic weapons and grenades at children events. It is the Somali version of Hooked on Phonics.

The militants have been rounding up children from schools to watch executions in places like Merca, Somalia.

In Kismayo, children competed for the right to own AK-47 assault rifles, hand grenades and anti-tank mines. At the prize ceremony, parents were reminded to teach their children well about the use of weapons and the need to kill.

For the full story, click here.

In an attack both on free speech and the free press, Saudia Arabia has ordered a female journalist to be flogged 60 times for airing an interview with a man who bragged about his sex life. Rosanna Al-Yami was also given a two-year travel ban for her role in the episode of “A Thick Red Line,” a popular show on social taboos.

On the episode, Mazen Abdul Jawad bragged about sex. He was given a sentence of five years in prison and 1,000 lashes.

The world has become accustomed to outrageous sentencings under Sharia law courts. However, this pushes even prior Saudi cases to an unprecedented degree with a direct attack on journalists. This case comes in the aftermath of the Obama Administration supporting a United Nations resolution that recognized the need to balance free speech and free press rights with a respect for religion. It also called on reporters to show more restraint and responsibility. For a prior column, click here.

For the full story, click here.

Nightline has been running a fascinating investigation into the Church of Scientology. This investigation includes this video of a walk-out of the spokesman for Scientology when asked simply about the beliefs of the church. According to the spokesman, it is “offensive” to be asked about what Scientologists specifically believe about the origins of man.

This is akin to the spokesman of the Vatican storming out when asked about Genesis.

The spokesman was specifically asked the “volcano” question. A volcano is often shown in advertisements for Dianetics. According to documents and former members, Hubbard (a failed science fiction writer) told followers that a galactic being named Xenu or Xemu had taken over as the rule of the “Galactic Confederacy.” Then, about 75 million years ago, he brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft that looked remarkably like Douglas DC-8 airliners. Once here he put them in or around volcanos stuffed with H-bombs and then blew them up.

Hubbard wrote:

Simultaneously, the planted charges erupted. Atomic blasts ballooned from the craters of Loa, Vesuvius, Shasta, Washington, Fujiyama, Etna, and many, many others. Arching higher and higher, up and outwards, towering clouds mushroomed, shot through with flashes of flame, waste and fission. Great winds raced tumultuously across the face of Earth, spreading tales of destruction…

This released the famed “thetans” that stuck to survivors and are the subject of continual auditing. Now that is not so offensive is it? It could be worse, you could be blown up with H-bombs in a volcano by a crazed galactic warrior.

By the way, Xenu was eventually locked him away in “an electronic mountain trap” and still exists — possibly in the Pyrenees (where he can apparently be tormented by the Tour de France each year).

As Guam debates legislation recognizing same-sex marriage, the Catholic Church appears to have reached out to some strange sources of support in its opposition: Islamic terrorists. In a letter being circulated from the Archdiocese of Agaña, Catholics are told that Islamic extremists may engage in suicide bombings but that they at least “value self sacrifice” and punish homosexuals with death. In a second letter without the Al Qaeda angle, Guam Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron still insists that homosexuality is dangerous, unhealthy, and immoral. He further adds a constitutional point of interest: saying that “the first amendment of the United States does no more than simply forbid the establishment of the state religion.”

The legislation in Guam has attracted a surprising degree of support – and a surprising degree of anger from the Church. It was introduced by an openly gay senator, B.J. Cruz who claims to be a victim of Catholic clergy abuse.

One letter purportedly from the Church included this remarkable statement:

“Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. This is why they repress such behavior by death…It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers…is a culture that at least knows how to value self sacrifice

It further says that the passage of the bill will herald the “end to Western Civilization.”

For the full letter, click here

It is not clear who is the author of that letter. The letter bears the symbol of the church, which has not denied its contents. However, it is not clear if this widely circulated letter was condoned by the leadership of the Church.

The Archbishop is the author of a second letter that contains some of the same dire warnings but without the citation to the faith of Islamic terrorists. It states that the legislation would put even Guam’s right of self-government in question. If passed, he states, the bill “will forfeit its moral authority to continue to govern this island and be “doubly destructive because it encourages a lifestyle that is intrinsically unhealthy.”

He insists that “every humanly-created law is legitimate only insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.”
His statement that the first amendment “does no more than simply forbid the establishment of the state religion” is itself interesting. This adopts the narrowest view of the religion clauses and, if accepted by the Supreme Court, would result in the wholesale rejection of many, if not most, of our entanglement cases. It is a view espoused by some conservative scholars but long rejected by the Court. If the first amendment “does no more than simply forbid the establishment of the state religion” than presumably states could become more involved in supporting religions generally and allow greater displays of faith in government buildings and classrooms.

With the recent announcement of the absorption of Anglican priests leaving that church over homosexuality (including marriage priests who will now be part of the Catholic Church), Rome is clearly reaffirming that it is entrenched on the issue of homosexuality — which will define much of the internal and external politics of the Church.

Police in Peoria, Arizona believe that they have another attempted honor killing. Faleh Hassan Almaleki, 48, ran over his 20-year-old daughter, Noor Faleh Almaleki, and her friend Amal Edan Khalaf because he allegedly viewed her as “too Westernized.” She has life threatening injuries and he is on the lam.

He is Iraqi and has complained about his daughter adopting American ways and habits. His solution appears to have been to try to “honorably” murder both women. He was last seen in a gray or silver Jeep Grand Cherokee.

We have kept a steady record of such honor killings or attempted killings, which largely occur outside of the United States. However, we have our own home grown variety as we have tragically seen over the years, here.

For the full story, click here.

A Former Focus on the Family employee in Colorado Springs, Juan Ovalle, appears a bit too focused on the kinder. He has been sentenced to five years probation for attempting to lure an underage teen into having sex with him. He founded Spanish Christian Audio in 2001 to help Christian organizations with their audio needs.

Ovalle, 42, works with the Spanish-speaking arm of the Colorado Springs Christian group.

His outreach to youth on this occasion turned out to be a police officer who he thought was a minor. He asked her “Do you like older guys?” and proceeded to tell her what he wanted to do with her in their meeting, here.

He will now have to register as a sex offender.

For the full story, click here.

We have yet another “honor killing” in the Middle East. An unnamed Jordanian man was charged on Sunday with murdering his 22-year-old daughter after finding out that she was pregnant. He killed her and her unborn child with a sword to preserve the honor of his family.

The father and his brother took the woman into the doctor when she complained about stomach pains. All three were surprised to learn that she was six months pregnant. On the way home, the father pulled over and stabbed the woman 25 times in her stomach with a sword. He later confessed to the crime and his brother was charged with premeditated murder. Notably, the state is holding the boyfriend in custody for his own protection to prevent his imminent execution by the family.

There are almost three dozen recorded cases of women being executed in honor killings each year in Jordan. While viewed as more modern than most of its neighbors, Jordan’s legislature still opposes efforts to force more severe punishment for honor killings, which are often the subject of low sentences or dismissals.

For the story, click here.

Here is today’s column in USA Today on the Obama Administration’s decision to join the U.N. Human Rights Council and support Egypt in recognizing limits on free speech for those who insult or denigrate religion. While the exception was included in a resolution heralding free speech, it was viewed as a major victory for Muslim countries seeking to establish an international blasphemy law.

Around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.

While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the “Muslim street” and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.

A ‘misused’ freedom?
In the resolution, the administration aligned itself with Egypt, which has long been criticized for prosecuting artists, activists and journalists for insulting Islam. For example, Egypt recently banned a journal that published respected poet Helmi Salem merely because one of his poems compared God to a villager who feeds ducks and milks cows. The Egyptian ambassador to the U.N., Hisham Badr, wasted no time in heralding the new consensus with the U.S. that “freedom of expression has been sometimes misused” and showing that the “true nature of this right” must yield government limitations.

His U.S. counterpart, Douglas Griffiths, heralded “this joint project with Egypt” and supported the resolution to achieve “tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” While not expressly endorsing blasphemy prosecutions, the administration departed from other Western allies in supporting efforts to balance free speech against the protecting of religious groups.

Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.

Blasphemy prosecutions in the West appear to have increased after the riots by Muslims following the publication of cartoons disrespecting prophet Mohammed in Denmark in 2005. Rioters killed Christians, burned churches and called for the execution of the cartoonists. While Western countries publicly defended free speech, some quietly moved to deter those who’d cause further controversies through unpopular speech.

In Britain, it is a crime to “abuse” or “threaten” a religion under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. A 15-year-old boy was charged last year for holding up a sign outside a Scientology building declaring, “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult. “In France, famed actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted for saying in 2006 that Muslims were ruining France in a letter to then-Interior Minister (and now President) Nicolas Sarkozy. This year, Ireland joined this self-destructive trend with a blasphemy law that calls for the prosecution of anyone who writes or utters views deemed “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”

‘Blasphemy’ incidents
Consider just a few such Western “blasphemy” cases in the past two years:

• In Holland, Dutch prosecutors arrested cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot for insulting Christians and Muslims with cartoons, including one that caricatured a Christian fundamentalist and a Muslim fundamentalist as zombies who want to marry and attend gay rallies.

• In Canada, the Alberta human rights commission punished the Rev. Stephen Boission and the Concerned Christian Coalition for anti-gay speech, not only awarding damages but also censuring future speech that the commission deems inappropriate.

• In Italy, comedian Sabina Guzzanti was put under criminal investigation for joking at a rally that “in 20 years, the pope will be where he ought to be — in hell, tormented by great big poofter (gay) devils, and very active ones.”

• In London, an aide to British Foreign Secretary David Miliband was arrested for “inciting religious hatred” at his gym by shouting obscenities about Jews while watching news reports of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza.Also, Dutch politician Geert Wilders was barred from entering Britain as a “threat to public policy, public security or public health” because he made a movie describing the Quran as a “fascist” book and Islam as a violent religion.

• In Poland, Catholic magazine Gosc Niedzielny was fined $11,000 for inciting “contempt, hostility and malice”by comparing the abortion of a woman to the medical experiments at Auschwitz.

The “blasphemy” cases include the prosecution of writers for calling Mohammed a “pedophile” because of his marriage to 6-year-old Aisha (which was consummated when she was 9). A far-right legislator in Austria, a publisher in India and a city councilman in Finland have been prosecuted for repeating this view of the historical record.

In the flipside of the cartoon controversy, Dutch prosecutors this year have brought charges against the Arab European League for a cartoon questioning the Holocaust.

What’s next?
Private companies and institutions are following suit in what could be seen as responding to the Egyptian-U.S. call for greater “responsibility” in controlling speech. For example, in an act of unprecedented cowardice and self-censorship, Yale University Press published The Cartoons That Shook the World, a book by Jytte Klausen on the original Mohammed cartoons. Yale, however, (over Klausen’s objections) cut the actual pictures of the cartoons. It was akin to publishing a book on the Sistine Chapel while barring any images of the paintings.

The public and private curtailment on religious criticism threatens religious and secular speakers alike. However, the fear is that, when speech becomes sacrilegious, only the religious will have true free speech. It is a danger that has become all the more real after the decision of the Obama administration to join in the effort to craft a new faith-based speech standard. It is now up to Congress and the public to be heard before the world leaves free speech with little more than a hope and a prayer.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.

USA Today: October 19, 2009

There has long been tension between animal activists and religious adherents over the sacrificing of live animals. Jewish and Muslim leaders have long argued that the sacrifices are not any more painful than what occurs in slaughter houses. Now a study is challenging that assumption and leading to calls in England for a ban on live sacrifices.

Animal protection laws in the UK required the stunning of animals before slaughter but exempt live religious sacrifices. Both Islamic halal and Jewish kashrut law require that animals are slaughtered by having their throats cut. The animal must be alive to allow blood to drain freely — a relatively slow death for the animal. Conversely, the Sikh ritual – chatka – is a fast death caused by a sword.

A study by New Zealand’s Massey University tested animals to detect pain responses and found that Jewish and Islamic methods caused pain within two minutes following the cut, but the animals would fall unconscious after 10 to 30 seconds. They concluded that the ritual slaughter was “painful” — a conclusion that many would find obvious, but it has legal significance since religious advocates have always argued that there was little pain.

Adam Rutherford, an editor of Nature, wrote that the study shows that “the anachronism of slaughter without stunning has no place in the modern world and should be outlawed. This special indulgence to religious practices should be replaced with the evidence-based approaches to which the rest of us are subject.”

Animal advocates are now calling for the UK to follow other European countries to require stunning before slaughter.

I assume that the researchers will now move on to the ritual of Kapparot, where a fowl is held by the neck and swung around the head for Yom Kippur — a sacrifice that is generally not viewed as “chicken friendly.”

For the full story, click here.

Professor Ellen van Wolde, a world acclaimed Old Testament scholar, may have introduced a considerable problem for creationists. What if the Bible never actually said God “created the Heaven and the Earth”? Van Wolde has issued an intriguing paper suggesting that a mistranslation is responsible for an error in the first sentence of Genesis and that in reality the Bible says that God merely rearranged things on the pre-existing Earth. Much of this turns on the Hebrew verb “bara”, which she says did not mean “to create” but to “spatially separate.” That would require Creationists to rename themselves as “separatists.” “Baristas” may cause trademark issues with Starbucks.

Professor van Wolde looked at the first line of Genesis that reads “in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth” and found that the Hebrew text had been translated incorrectly. The proper translation, she argues, is that the Earth was already there when God created humans and animals.

The use of bara she argues was “meant to say that God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself.”

She concludes “[t]he traditional view of God the Creator is untenable now.”

For the full story, click here.

Muslim extremists in Somalia are taking to the streets to address the latest threat to Islam under Sharia law: bras. The men from Al Shabaab have been whipping women found to be wearing the “deceptive” garments.

Women are complaining that they have been told to take off the garments and shake their breasts by Islamic gunmen.

At the same time, men without beards have been arrested. Some men have also been arrested for defending their sisters and wives from such public humiliation. This is likely to further delay the opening of a Victoria’s Secret in Mogadishu.

This is precisely why many of us had hoped that Dr. Samar would win the Nobel this year, here.

For the full story, click here.

There is an interesting potential contract case brewing in New York and other cities with large Orthodox Jewish populations. Various buildings in New York cater to Orthodox residents in offering such things as Shabbos elevators, which stop on every floor from Friday evening to Saturday evening so that residents do not have to push floor buttons. Talmudic rules prohibit the use of electrical devices. However, a group of powerful rabbis have now issued a new judgment on the use of Shabbos elevators that they may indeed be a prohibited practice — even if you simply step into one.

There has long been a divide among Orthodox Jews on elevators. Many viewed them to be prohibited devices, but in the 1960s rabbinical scholars announced that families could use the elevators so long as they did not push the buttons. This was an obvious load off for Orthodox families in New York, which largely live in high rises.

By the way, the same approach is taken by some Amish groups. I have gone on biking trips to the Pennsylvania Amish areas where some families actually buy cars for neighbors, who in turn agree to drive them to different places. As in the Jewish community, many Amish have long rejected the practice as still using a machine.

Now back to the Shabbos elevators. Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, 99, originally signed the letter giving the green light to Shabbos elevators. He is considered the most influential rabbi on the interpretation of the Torah in Orthodox world. He and other rabbis issued a statement that they have reviewed “a written and oral technical opinion” of engineers that indicate that Shabbos elevators may be a “desecration of the Sabbath.” The assumption is that one of the problems is that modern elevators have a device that monitors weight and adjusts power according to the number of people in the car. The rabbis concluded that riding in the elevator is using a device.

This creates a serious problem for landlords. First, in Israel, all buildings are legally required to have at least one Shabbos elevator, which will now just be known as the “slow elevator.” Second, for buildings promising such elevators, the question is whether they must seek the creation of a new designed elevator without such things as the weighing component. Not only would that be hugely expensive but could run afoul with safety laws.

For the full story, click here.

In light of the recent disclosure that President Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize just 12 days after taking office and was initially opposed from the majority of the Committee (here), there is some interest on who was stepped over for the honor. The most striking “loser” in the competition was Dr. Sima Samar, an amazingly brave Afghan woman who has risked her life to fight for the rights of women and girls in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Dr. Samar is the chairwomen of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and was the first Hazara woman to obtain a medical degree from Kabul University, back in 1982. She has had to repeatedly flee for her life but has insisted on returning time and time again to treat the poor and fight for women’s rights — in an area with feminists are routinely killed or sprayed with acid by extremists.

Most incredibly, she stood against the extremism of Sharia law and criticized the use of such religious courts in the country. Her opposition to religious radicals led to her being forced out as Deputy President and later Minister of Women’s Affairs in the interim government of Hamid Karzai. She has even campaigned against the compelled use of the burka and sought to organize and educate women in Taliban-controlled areas.

For civil libertarians, the comparison of Samar and Obama could not be more striking. Where Obama has repeatedly refused to fight for principle and yielded to politics (in areas like torture, privacy, and detainee rights), Samar has refused to yield on principle — even at the risk of her own life. While Obama was in office less than two weeks before his nomination, Samar has spent a lifetime fighting for oppressed women in Afghanistan.

For her story and others passed over for the award, click here.

President BarackN Obama, the world’s newest Nobel peace laureate, is again expanding on the policies of former President George Bush and fighting to conceal evidence of U.S. torture and abuse. As did the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration is seeking to change the law after courts rejected its absurd argument that the President can withhold photos of detainee abuse simply because they are embarrassing to the United States. Democrats in Congress are assisting in the effort to try to stop the Supreme Court from considering the issue by preempting the litigation.

This is the problem of nominating someone for the Nobel prize less than two weeks after entering office, here. Obama has thus far worked as a barrier rather than a catalyst for international law and values in the areas of torture and abuse. His position in the case of ACLU v. Department of Defense is reprehensible and exceeds the arguments made by Bush. He is claiming that he can deny the media and the public such pictures simply because he views them as controversial and likely to cause anger from Muslims. It is an exception that would swallow the rule.

As some of stated at the time, this argument is legally meritless and that is precisely what the courts have concluded. Now, however, Obama has taken another lesson from Bush. Unable to win on the merits, he has called on Congress to simply change the rules before the Supreme Court can vote. Democrats have joined the effort and are now close to passing legislation to remove the courts from the controversy. This is what Obama supportedW on the telecom litigation, where courts had rejected arguments of executive authority and Congress stepped in to extinguish dozens of public interest lawsuits.

The position of President Obama in the case is disgraceful. Solicitor General Elena Kagan has admitted that the pictures show such things as “soldiers pointing pistols or rifles at the heads of hooded and handcuffed detainees.” In another, “a soldier holds a broom as if ’sticking its end into the rectum of a restrained detainee.’” Kagan has taken the extraordinary step of asking the Court to delay considering the case to allow Congress to kill the litigation through legislation. As a result, no court would be allowed to rule on the release of the 87 photographs and authority would be transferred to the Defense Department.

Had Bush done such a thing (giving the Pentagon control) Democrats would have been in the streets. However, Democratic leaders are supporting the effort, the media is largely silent, and the Democratic base is passive. The move contradicts Obama’s pledge of transparency in government. It contradicts his pledge to make a full account of abuses. It makes of mockery of his award of the Nobel for encouraging international “dialogue”. It appears that that dialogue must still occur on the terms set by the United States and specifically avoids evidence that would embarrass the United States or show clearly how it has violated international law.

For the story, click here.

Here is this week’s column from Roll Call. It explores the interesting selection of cases this term for the Supreme Court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s colleagues could not have selected cases more carefully to address areas of uncertainty from her confirmation hearing. Whether by accident or design, this docket is front-loaded with cases that will force Sotomayor to show her true colors in the first few months of her tenure as an associate justice.

Justices in the past have often described the first week of a new session as a lot like the start of a new school year with old friends talking about the summer and new friends getting acquainted. Of course, this new term starts with a “new kid” of the block Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Many people are speculating whether she will be a BFF for the liberals or, like Justice Anthony Kennedy, an uncertain friend to both sides? For those looking for the new line-up on the Court, they will not have to wait long. The docket is front-loaded with cases raising fundamental questions where Sotomayor will have to speak clearly on her view of constitutional protections.

This term will show whether we have not one but two consistent swing justices. Since the departure of Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy is often the only thing standing between a constitutional right and its reduction or expansion.

For Sotomayor to assume O’Connor’s role would be a bitter thing for liberals who expected a more consistent liberal nominee from Obama – particularly given Bush’s appointment of two consistent conservative justices. With control of Congress and Obama in the White House, it would be like having the capital for a beach mansion and ending up with a condo time share.

The Court has selected cases that may rekindle old ideological allegiances among the justices, forcing both Sotomayor and Kennedy to return to “first principles” in their views of free speech, federalism, free exercise of religion and gun rights. During her confirmation hearing, Sotomayor was hounded by questions in two areas: free speech and gun rights. To a remarkable degree, her colleagues have chosen cases almost tailor-made to force Sotomayor to choose sides on those very questions. As if to personalize the term further for Sotomayor, the justices also loaded the docket with corporate cases – an area where Sotomayor (who practiced corporate law)is likely to depart from her liberal colleagues.

Last month, the Court accepted a major handgun case, McDonald v. Chicago, that will define the scope of the recently recognized individual right under the Second amendment. The Seventh Circuit ruled that gun ownership is not a “fundamental right” that applies to the states. That is precisely the position reached by Sotomayor while on the Second Circuit in two controversial cases. She argued that this was a question that had to be left to the Supreme Court and that, absent such a ruling, it is assumed that the right only applies to the federal government. Now, she will help answer the question posed for the Court. For her and her colleagues, the decision will pit state rights against gun rights.

Sotomayor was also criticized by liberals for her voting in an important case to curtail free speech rights of high school students. She will now rule on two cases that raise fundamental questions of free speech. These cases will also test the solidity of conservative block on the Court, particularly Justice Kennedy.

The first of the two cases was heard in a rare September re-argument, involving “Hillary: The Movie” – a 90 minute film released during the presidential election that is a virtual diatribe against Clinton. At issue is the constitutionality of one of the major parts of the campaign finance law and whether corporations should enjoy free speech rights like individual citizens.

Another potentially sweeping case will be heard on the second day of the new term: United States v. Stevens. The case will test the Court’s willingness to stand on the principle of free speech to protect material that contains cruel and disturbing content. Robert J. Stevens of Pittsville, Va., was convicted under a federal law for selling videotapes of fighting pit bulls and sentenced to 37 months in prison. The case law has largely drawn a bright line between criminalizing the conduct (here dog fighting) as opposed to speech containing such images or photographs. If there is an exception for material showing cruelty to animals, how about cruelty to women, police officers, or just cruelty?

In addition to these two free speech cases, the Court also accepted cases that will test press rights and religious rights under the First Amendment. In Department of Defense v. ACLU, the Court will decide whether President Obama can withhold detainee abuse photographs simply because they would embarrass the United States and anger Muslims. In Salazar v. Buono, the Court will consider an 8-foot-tall cross in the Mojave National Preserve in Southern California — erected by the Veterans of Foreign Wars in 1934. The veterans are claiming a secular purpose for the cross in what would be a major exception under the separation of church and state. As with the Stevens case, they are the type of cases where First Amendment advocates fear Sotomayor or Kennedy might abandon bright-line rules for compromise decisions.

Likewise, the Court will have to reexamine the Eighth Amendment in two companion cases from Florida — Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida. These cases raise the question of whether the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment apply to juveniles in non-homicide cases. The Court previously adopted a different standard for juveniles in death cases but these cases will address whether a similar standard should be applicable to sentences of juveniles for life without parole.

If her years on the Second Circuit are any measure, Sotomayor is likely to continue her role as a swing voter in some areas. Of course, she could be a surprise (like Souter) in tilting sharply to the left of the Court. Either way, the members appear to have picked a docket that will “assort out” the class of 2009 — and there may be two justices left in the middle at the end of it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University where he teaches a course on the Supreme Court.

This week, the Catoosa County School Board in Ringgold, Georgia will meet on controversy over the cheerleaders of Georgia’s Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School who use Biblical verses as part of their displays to root for the football team to “commit to the Lord” and “take courage and do it.”

The players would break through paper signs with the Biblical verses but local youth minister Brad Scott insists that they “are not trying to push a religious cause, to shove religion down someone’s throat. The cheerleaders are just using Scripture to show motivation and inspiration to the players and the fans.” They have a curious selection of scripture choices. For example, one banner quoted Ezra 10:4: “Rise up; this matter is in your hands. We will support you, so take courage and do it.” The only problem is that this Biblical passage describes how Ezra followed the lead of God to banish foreign women and their innocent children for not being pure. Here is the whole passage for the next game:

“While Ezra was praying and confessing, weeping and throwing himself down before the house of God, a large crowd of Israelites—men, women and children—gathered around him. They too wept bitterly. Then Shecaniah son of Jehiel, one of the descendants of Elam, said to Ezra, “We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the peoples around us. But in spite of this, there is still hope for Israel. Now let us make a covenant before our God to send away all these women and their children, in accordance with the counsel of my lord and of those who fear the commands of our God. Let it be done according to the Law. Rise up; this matter is in your hands. We will support you, so take courage and do it.” So Ezra rose up and put the leading priests and Levites and all Israel under oath to do what had been suggested. And they took the oath.”

Thus, the cheerleaders were exalting their players to go into the stands, find foreign women and their children, and chase them from Catossa County. Now, that is a half-time show!

Of course, I wonder how parents would feel about some heartening Muslim passages like “He is the Mighty, the Wise One” or “The fate of each man We have bound about his neck.”

The school system received a complaint and found correctly that it constitutes “a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution for signs with Bible verses to be displayed on the football field.”

This has led to a backlash among parents who demand that the Bible be brought back to the football field.

If the verses are reintroduced, they might want to go with a few with a bit more kick:

“You . . . will also be slaughtered by my sword.” (Zephaniah 2:12-15)

“They shall be apportioned for foxes.” (Psalm 63: 11)

“Be patient; the time is coming soon. (Zephaniah 2:12-15)

“When he raises himself up, the mighty fear; Because of the crashing they are bewildered.” (Job 41:1-34)

“The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem and captured it, killing all its people and setting the city on fire.” (Judges 1:1-8)

Fort Oglethorpe Mayor Ronnie Cobb insists that he is “against them doing away with it” and that “[i]f it’s offensive to anyone, let them go watch another football game. Nobody’s forced to come there and nobody’s forced to read the signs.” Now, there is an intriguing standard: if you do not want Jesus with your football, do not come and watch the game or your children. So much for Zechariah 13:3 “If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, ‘You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.’ When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through.”

The board will now decide whether to comply with the constitution or spend the entire sports budget in fighting the ban on the entanglement of church and state. Wouldn’t a “Go Team” banner be sufficient? You can even leave a space and imagine a “d” following “Go” . . . and cheer religiously.

What most maddens me, however, is that the high school left out one of my favorite country music songs:

For the full story, click here.

Texas parents are complaining that a program to distribute free Gideon Bibles at schools may have backfired. So many Bibles were distributed to students in Plano and Frisco that students reportedly began to use them as weapons, sold them, or even uses the pages to roll joints. In one particularly disturbing account, a Jewish boy was attacked by Christian students throwing the bibles at him.

The American Civil Liberties Union has issued a report on the abuse. Various complaints have been filed over the program by Gideons International. We previously followed one such controversy in Frisco where the violence has been reported, here.

The attack on the Jewish student occurred at Frankford Middle School in Plano.

It appears “going Biblical” in Texas schools can have a slightly more threatening meaning than other states.

For the story, click here.

There is an interesting potential torts case out of Arizona where two people died and 19 people were injured as part of a “sweatbox” ceremony reportedly led by James Arthur Ray, author of the best-selling book “Harmonic Wealth: The Secret of Attracting the Life You Want.”

The sweatbox is a dome structure covered in tarps and blankets in the Arizona desert. The participants had spent two hours in the sweatbox when authorities were called.

The dead participants were described as “a middle-aged man and woman.” Such ceremonies present an obvious risk to people who may not be able to deal with the physical stress of the high temperatures in a sweat hut. The dome is located in Angel Valley Resort which bills itself as “a place to relax and heal … where powerful earth energies are present and active.” The resort claims to have “twenty marked vortexes and angel sites to experience connection with Earth and spirit, deep relaxation, and balancing,” including “two labyrinths and an Angel Wheel for going inward, finding answers and getting insights.”

Ray boasts that he appears regularly on CNN’s “Larry King Live” and the “Oprah Winfrey Show” in spreading his message of spiritual healing. He tells followers that “[y]our gut instincts tell you life is not really meant to be a struggle, yet you’ve been brainwashed to think that only sweat and hard work will get you where you want to be. Here’s a better way…” That way appears to be in a sweat hut for some.

Notably, the resort itself holds tax-exemption as a religious organization with the IRS, but that will not protect it from lawsuit. Presumably, this new age religion has some old-age waiver forms. However, there remains some serious questions of how so many people could fall ill in only two hours in a sweat lodge without gross negligence. The resort promises that its activities “can assist in making profound changes in your life.” For at least two people, that was undeniably true and I expect many will find that their own “path” leads to the door of a personal injury lawyer.

For the full story, click here.

We have another case of a child dying from a relatively minor condition while surrounded by praying adults. Kent Schaible, 2, died of bacterial pneumonia because the parents Herbert and Catherine Schaible believed in faith-healing and declined to get medical attention for the child in Philadelphia. This is strikingly similar to the case of Leilani and Dale Neumann in Wisconsin who were recently given light sentences in such a faith-based case. As shown below, difficult questions are raised by the disparate treatment given parents who neglect children for religious as opposed to non-religious reasons.

For almost two weeks, Kent’s conditions grew worse and included a variety of obvious symptoms of growing medical danger, including sore throat, congestion, liquid bowel movements, sleeplessness and trouble swallowing. A simple prescription of antibiotics or even Tylenol may have kept him alive. Instead, the parents and other adults prayed around him until he was dead and then called a funeral home.

The parents are charged with involuntary manslaughter, conspiracy to commit involuntary manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child.

Herbert Schaible, 41, and Catherine Schaible, 40, are members of the First Century Gospel Church. They told police “[w]e prayed to God for victory . . . We were praying that he would be raised up.”

For the Philadelphia story, click here.

What is fascinating about this case is that treatment in the legal system. In cases where parents simply neglect their children, the courts and prosecutors often seek murder charges or long sentences. However, if you fail to take the same measures as a religious matter, you often face lesser charges and more lenient treatment. In this case, the court simply called the parents “misguided” while holding them over for arraignment.

In another case in Wisconsin, Dale and Leilani Neumann declined to get medical attention for their 11-year-old daughter, Madeline Kara Neumann, who died of an undiagnosed but treatable form of diabetes. While they could have received 25 years in prison, the court gave them six months in jail and 10 years probation.

Marathon County Circuit Court Judge Vincent Howard said the Neumanns were “very good people, raising their family who made a bad decision, a reckless decision.” He then gently encouraged them to remember that “God probably works through other people, some of them doctors.”

Kara also died surrounded by adults praying rather than calling for medical help. Medical staff was not called until she stopped breathing. Leilani Neumann, 41, was unrepentant at sentencing (something that usually results in higher sentences): “I do not regret trusting truly in the Lord for my daughter’s health. Did we know she had a fatal illness? No. Did we act to the best of our knowledge? Yes.”

Dale Neumann, 47, also reaffirmed the correctness of their actions: “I am guilty of trusting my Lord’s wisdom completely. … Guilty of asking for heavenly intervention. Guilty of following Jesus Christ when the whole world does not understand. Guilty of obeying my God.”

Notably, the parents will not even have to serve six months consecutively, but will serve one month in jail each year for six years and must allow a public health nurse to examine their two underage children at least once every three months.

Dale Neumann, a former Pentecostal minister, however, promised to continue undeterred in their faith-based policies: “We live by faith. We are completely content with what the Lord has allowed to come down, but he is not done yet.”

The faith-based cases are only the latest such cases in a series of such deaths of children, here.

The policy question is why parents who neglected their children and cause injury (as opposed to death) are given far harsher punishments as parents who actually kill their children as a matter of faith. Clearly, intent and scienter should play a role in sentencing but the difference in punishment is remarkable. The Neumann’s actions resulted in the death of their child and they received a sentence close to what Russell J. Wozniak Jr., 26, and Jennifer Ann Wozniak, 23, received for allowing their two-year-old to wander around covered in vomit with a full diaper, here.

Consider the comparison with the case of Alex Washburn, 22-months, who died a couple days after falling and hitting his head. Elizabeth Dawn Thornton, 22, and Christopher Steven Washburn, 32, insisted that the boy fell a lot and hit his head on the corner of the table and his chin on a toilet. No evidence was submitted to contest that account. Moreover, the parents apologized for not seeking medical help and agreed to terminate their parental rights to the other children. Christopher Washburn told the court “I wish I did seek medical treatment for my son faster. That will definitely be with me for the rest of my life.”

The Court imposed sentenced both parents to three to 15 years in prison. So, the Neumanns get one month in jail for six years (and keep their children despite refusals to apologize) and the Washburns get up to 15 years in prison (and agree to give up their parental rights).

These cases suggest a considerable discount given people who claim a religious motivation rather than simple neglect. While the former cases occur with intent to deny medical care, they are treated as bad choices rather than serious crimes in many cases.

For the full story, click here.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair used a speech at Georgetown University to warn of the threat against the West that is growing at alarming rate. No, he wasn’t talking about terrorism, the recession, or even Swine Flu. He was talking about atheists and the menace they present to the world. Not since leaders tackled the dangers of witches in our midst has a politician sounded such an alarm. This politician happens to be the leading contender for the first “president of Europe.”

Blair sounded the alarm for all God-fearing citizens to be on the look out for atheists who he seems to portray as an equal threat as terrorists. He warned that “[w]e face an aggressive secular attack from without. We face the threat of extremism from within.” He called on religious people to unite against atheists who offer “no hope” and threaten the demise of the West. How dangerous? Just read this incredible line: “Those who scorn God and those who do violence in God’s name, both represent views of religion. But both offer no hope for faith in the twenty first century.”

“[A]n aggressive secular attack from without”? I do not recall many atheists or agnostics driving car bombs into markets or invading nations to fight for the “one and true [lack of] faith.”

Could you imagine if Blair singled out a faith for such analogies to terrorism? There are millions of atheists around the world who simply do not believe in God. Yet you have one of the world’s leaders calling for a united campaign against them and calling their beliefs a danger to mankind.

The only question is whether Blair will be stopping in Albuquerque to join City Councilor Don Harris at the front lines against the atheist hoard, here.
For the full speech, click here.

In Raleigh, James Nichols says he wants to find God but he can’t find him in North Carolina. The convicted sex-offender was arrested when he tried to attend church because he is not allowed to be present on any property where children are present, such as in the church’s daycare center. It is only the latest in a series of cases that pit the freedom of religion against sex offender laws.

We have previously seen cases of sex offenders raising free exercise claims, here. As politicians impose wider and wider prohibitions on where sex offenders may live or work, ex-felons are having to live in forests and under bridges to avoid prohibited areas, here. In some cases these laws amount to virtual banishment by barring virtually every block in a given city, here.

To add to the problems, states have been defining sex offender to include a wide array of offenses, including consensual acts between teenagers, here.

Nichols, 31, was convicted twice of indecent liberties with a teen girl and again in 2003 for attempted second-degree rape. He is barred under a law that bars his being within 300 feet of any place intended primarily for the use, care or supervision of minors among other geographic limitations. Thirty-six states establish such prohibited zones. He was arrested after attending Sunday services at the Moncure Baptist Church.

State legislators are unapologetic. Democratic state Sen. David Hoyle, who sponsored the law insists, “I’m not denying him the right to go to church. He denied himself that . . . If they are a convicted pedophile, they have given up a lot of their rights.” I would have thought that politicians would want offenders to find God and seek a moral lifestyle.

These cases will present a fascinating challenge under the free exercise clause and could impose some limitations on the current rush to expand prohibited zones for ex-offenders.

For the full story, click here.

As if by divine intervention, the debate over the separation of church and state was answered today — even as the Supreme Court took up the case of Salazar v. Buono ( 08-472). This picture clearly shows Jesus giving the Constitution to the drafters — resolving any suggestion that the original framers envisioned a separation. It came directly from Jesus and should moot the case heard by the Court today.

Before this evidence was produced, the Court was poised to decide whether religious symbols in military cemeteries fail into an exception under the first amendment. The war memorial in California’s Mojave National Preserve features an 8-foot-high cross that was erected with a plaque commemorating the “Dead of All Wars.” A former National Parks Service member, Frank Buono, sued in 2001 and challenged the cross as violating the Constitution’s ban on the establishment of religion. However, as this picture shows, there was no other deity present. The picture shows the conspicuous absence of Buddha, Muhammad, Yahweh, or any number of Hindu Gods. It is not clear whether the Court can take judicial notice of such evidence and save itself a lot of trouble.

In the meantime, the Obama Administration and Solicitor General Elena Kagan are again at odds with civil libertarians — opposing Buono and seeking to bar the action for lack of standing. This comes at the same time that the Administration is supporting efforts to limit free speech in the United Nations to protect religion from some critics, here. Obama ran on a faith-based political message, here.
The case could create a broad “secular purpose” exception that would swallow the rule. With the replacement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. the center of gravity of the Court may have shifted since the 2005 cases. It is also unclear where Justice Sonia Sotomayor would stand on such an exception.

Of course, now that the evidence is in, the Court can start to construct a mandatory entanglement doctrine between church and state.

This site has already begun analysis of the picture as shown by dragging your cursor across the various figures.

For the story on the Mojave cross, click here.

And I thought John Ricci was damned. Police accuse China Graham of Ellwood City of laying hands on the faithful in the First Presbyterian Church in New Brighton, PA . . . well at least their valuables. She is accused of first using a stolen check for a donation and then grabbing a wallet from a women who left her purse in the pew when she went for communion.

It turns out that she is also quite nimble. Police say that Graham, 20, jumped out of a second-floor window when they showed up at her residence.

What is fascinating is that she used the stolen check to write a $50 contribution to the church with the notation “Mya Love.”

A warrant has been issued for access device fraud, theft and two counts of receiving stolen property. If captured, I would recommend a bench over a jury trial.

By the way, the theft of purses during masses is becoming a national trend, here, here and here.

For the full story, click here.

We recently saw the outrage among fundamentalists when questions were raised whether a creationist can be a good mayor at St. Petersburg, here. Now Albuquerque City Councilor Don Harris is mailing voters to warn them that his opponent is . . . wait for it . . . an atheist. It appears that atheists cannot be good city council members since one cannot fill a pothole if your soul is empty of the Lord. The Godless office seeker, David Barbour, is shown on the right.

Harris sent out the mailer to inform people that “[Barbour] is a donor to Atheist organizations and speaker at Atheist events…”

Harris is truly a piece of work. Not only does he warn people that there is an atheist wanting to serve humanity, but Barbour has actually engaged in protests “even in foreign countries.” Oh my God. A man who exercised free speech in this and other countries wants to serve his community. Stone him, I say.

An atheist site asked Harris to explain what major speeches Barbour gave in support of atheism. Here is what was reported:

Harris responded to our post with information indicating that Barbour was a member of a Unitarian Universalist congregation, who gave a talk on atheism and donated money to a scholarship in honor of Charles Darwin.

So, the money he gave was in support of science education, not atheism alone.

And here’s a description of that terrible, horrible, no good, why-would-you-ever-want-to-vote-for-him? talk that he gave:

On July 2nd, 2003 Katherine Hepburn passed away. The world lost a fine person, an excellent actress and a confirmed atheist. This service explores Ms. Hepburn’s life, the positive aspects of atheism and the reasons why a Unitarian congregation is better off with some atheists and humanists. Along the way we find out about some atheist resources and what is happening locally in the atheist community.

I cannot believe that such a person got this close to serving on the Albuquerque city council.

Of course, Harris is following the rule books of both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Sarah Palin who ran on their faith and incorporated their religious beliefs as one of the reasons to vote for them. For an earlier column, click here.

What is astonishing is that Albuquerque’s alternative weekly paper, the Alibi, endorsed Harris. Whatever Barbour is lacking in policy, how can a newspaper endorse someone who engages in such campaigns? The Alibi needs to withdraw that endorsement if it is to retain any credibility as a newspaper, let alone an alternative newspaper.
For the story, click here.

The Obama administration has shocked many in the civil liberties community with the tacit endorsement of limitations of free speech in the United Nations. We have been following the international trend (here and here and here and here) to criminalize criticism of religions, including this prior column. The Administration has joined the UN Human Rights Council and has agreed to create a “new” standard balancing speech and respect for religion. These new standards are merely thinly disguised blasphemy laws that are spreading throughout the world, including the West.

The fear is that the Obama Administration will try to rehabilitate our image in the Muslim world by supporting this long effort to allow greater “consensus” on punishing criticism of religion as a form of hate speech.

Chargé d’Affaires Douglas Griffiths, announced:

“The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

Egypt has been one of the main proponents of an international blasphemy law.

There is no balancing needed. People should have the right to say anything about religions regardless of how offensive it may be to the majority of citizens or governments. The new resolution, however, stresses “the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . .” which include taking action against anything meeting the description of “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” The resolution would also insists that journalists “recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media” and supports “the media’s elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct” in relation to “combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”

For the leading democratic nation in the world to support such a principle of limiting free speech is an outrageous and dangerous development. It further shows the Administration’s willingness to trade principles for political gains. Congress needs to hold hearings and civil libertarians need to be heard on this new American initiative. There are various ways to appeal to Muslim nations without joining them in sacrificing free speech on the altar of religion.

For the full story, click here.

Alabama Supreme Court has joined the debate over morality being the sole basis for legislative restrictions on citizens. The court upheld the state ban on the sale of sex toys purely on the basis that such toys are viewed as immoral. Since Lawrence v. Texas, such morality based laws have been questioned on constitutional grounds. For a prior column, click here.

At issue is Section 13A-12-200.5(4) which prohibits such sales “within 1,000 feet of a church, place of worship, church bookstore, public park, public housing project, daycare center, public or private school, college, recreation center, skating rink, video arcade, public swimming pool, private residence, or any other place frequented by minors.” It would be simpler to just ban it outright rather than pretend a tailored zone restriction when the law includes any residence, church bookstore or place with kids.

The case of 1568 Montgomery Highway, Inc. v. City of Hoover involves a business called Love Stuff in Hoover, Alabama where sex toys are sold to adults.

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the majority can ban such sales as offensive to the majority of the citizenry. Associate Justice Michael F. Bolin wrote “[p]ublic morality can still serve as a legitimate rational basis for regulating commercial activity, which is not a private activity”. It relied on the earlier decisions of the Eleventh Circuit and Fifth Circuit that such laws can be defended as rationally based on morality grounds. The court distinguished the Lawrence case.

The court ruled:

in rejecting Love Stuff’s federal constitutional challenge to [the law], we agree with the interpretation given Lawrence v. Texas by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Post-Lawrence public morality can still serve as a legitimate rational basis for regulating commercial activity, which is not a private activity. As the 11th Circuit pithily and somewhat coarsely stated: `There is nothing `private’ or `consensual’ about the advertising and sale of a dildo’.

The case could make for a fascinating appeal and finally put the question of morality legislation squarely before the Supreme Court. However, Justice Sotomayor would be an uncertainty on the question (as opposed to David Souter who would likely have voted to strike down the law).

Here is the opinion: Alabama decision

Abdul Mouti Bayoumi, a well-known and influential scholar in Egypt, has called for the execution of women who buy female virginity-faking kits. Since such kits help conceal vice, he argues, their use should be a death-penalty offense under Sharia law.

The kits are made in China and are sold in Syria for just $15.

The Egyptian Parliament is working on a ban for the product.

Violence against women for not being virgins is not limited to the Middle East, as shown in this case from England.

Bayoumi teaches at prestigious al-Azhar University.

Clearly, Egypt needs to fly in Deborah Parish to speak to the female population, here.

For the full story, click here.

This is the only known video of Anne Frank that was just made available. While short, it adds an even more chilling aspect to her writings.

The 20-second footage from July 21, 1941 showing the 13-year-old Anne leaning out of a second-floor window to get a better look at a bride and groom who lived at No 37 Merwedeplein, next door to the Franks at No 39. It was less than a year before the family went into hiding. Anne would die of typhus in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp only days after the death of her sister, Margot Frank. Only her father would survive. The family of the couple gave the film to Otto Frank, Anne’s father, in the 1950s.

The most haunting aspect of the film is the sense of quiet and tranquility before the storm. Frank is just one more little girl who wants to see the bride and groom. She also has the happy disposition that rarely left her in her diary.

The film fits perfectly with Anne’s observation in her diary:

The best remedy for those who are afraid, lonely or unhappy is to go outside, somewhere where they can be quiet, alone with the heavens, nature and God. Because only then does one feel that all is as it should be.

For the full story, click here.

Her name is Ardi and, while she may not have been much of a looker by modern standards, she had one remarkable skill. She walked upright. This find in Ethiopa pushed our evolutionary traces about a million years earlier than the famed Lucy found in 1974.

Lucy can be forgiven for being a bit peeved by the displacement by a younger woman or at least a younger Hominid. Ardi was 4 feet tall and walked upright a million years earlier.

Ardi (known more formally as Ardipithecus ramidus) reinforces the view that humans and chimpanzees evolved separately but from a common ancestor — a central concept of evolution of the human species.

Project co-director Tim White, a paleontologist at the University of California, Berkeley, had a “I Can’t Believe Its Not Human” human moment, stating “This is not an ordinary fossil. It’s not a chimp. It’s not a human. It shows us what we used to be.”

Ardi was found in Aramis, Ethiopia. This suggests that we are all a bit Ethiopian. I just cannot understand why I can’t finish a marathon worth a damn.

Of course, none of this is particularly credible given the fact that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, according to many of our political leaders (here and here). This makes Ardi a chimp with a talent, here. The picture on the right shows the accurate record for scientists to base further research.

However, I have to disagree with both the scientists and the creationists. This leading scientific study shows precisely how homer sapiens evolved:

For the full story, click here.

The Vatican appears in need of a serious media consultant. Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the UN, has issued a defense that boils down to insisting that implicated priests were not pedophiles but homosexuals who liked young boys — and besides no more than five percent of priests had sex with children . . . and Jews and Protestants do it more.

Tomasi made his confrontational statement following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, insisting only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse. Tomasi seems to think that the faithful can rest assured that the likelihood that the priest will sexually assault your child is only 5 out of every 100 priests. Those are odds that are viewed as more than adequate in Vegas.

He also insisted that it is more likely that your child will be abused by Protestant or Jewish religious leaders — making the Catholic Church a virtual safe zone if you are going on purely the average likelihood of a rape. That could lead to a new campaign: “Go Catholic: We are Statistically Less Likely to Rape Your Child.”

Besides, Tomasi insisted “[o]f all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17.” He insisted most of the accused priests are homosexuals who simply liked younger partners.

The angry response came after Keith Porteous Wood of the International Humanist and Ethical Union accused the Church of covering up child abuse and being in breach of several articles under the Convention on the Rights of the Child: “The many thousands of victims of abuse deserve the international community to hold the Vatican to account, something it has been unwilling to do, so far. Both states and children’s organizations must unite to pressure the Vatican to open its files, change its procedures worldwide, and report suspected abusers to civil authorities.”

For the full story, click here.

Previously, we saw a crackdown in Saudi Arabia on women working out at private clubs and the cancelation of festivals. Now, Sheik Saad Bin Naser al-Shethri, who is a member of the powerful government-sanctioned Supreme Committee of Scholars, is calling for the end of women being able to attend any co-ed classes in universities as a “great sin and a great evil.”

Al-Shethri wants to bar women at the newly opened King Abdullah Science and Technology University, warning “[m]ixing is a great sin and a great evil. When men mix with women, their hearts burn and they will be diverted from their main goal (which is) … education.” Burning hearts have not been a particular problem in my co-ed law classes but then again it is hard to spot cardiac combustion from the lectern.

For the full story, click here.

An Afghan girl in Helmand province led a typically sheltered life of the strict Muslim culture in the area. To reach such inhabitants of the remote area, the British resorted to dropping leaflets and succeeded in reaching the girl directly. She was reportedly crushed by a box of public information leaflets dropped by the British Royal Air Force. The drops have been used to either warn residents of the dangers of unexploded bombs or as part of “psychops” missions to “win the hearts and minds” of the population. This includes the standard leaflet below asking girls to think about their future.

The British Ministry of Defense has called the case “highly regrettable,” a position that appears a bit understated.

The RAF explains that “[s]adly one of the boxes failed to fully open” and the 40-pound box crushed the girl.

One of the common leaflets dropped in the area reads “Is this the future you want for your women and children?” Answer would appear to be no. Crushing the population of girls from the air is probably not the future that most want to embrace in the province.

For the full story, click here and here

The Supreme Court has accepted a major handgun case, McDonald v. Chicago, that will define the scope of the recently recognized individual right under the Second Amendment. It will also allow new Justice Sonia Sotomayor to vote on the very issue that led to much of the opposition against her in her confirmation.

We previously discussed the related appeal from the Seventh Circuit and, at the time, I noted that it had as good a chance for cert as any case that I have seen. In that case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit handed down a decision that addressed the same issue ruled upon by then-Judge Sotomayor on the scope of the individual right vis-a-vis the states. In National Rifle Association v. Chicago, the Seventh Circuit upheld a Chicago ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits. In so doing, it held that the individual right to bear arms is not a fundamental right applicable to the states. It is precisely the hypothetical that some of us discussed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment. It supported the view of Sotomayor, who has been criticized for two opinions (including one after the Heller decision) that rejected the right to bear arms as a fundamental right. The decision in that appeal was particularly strong and was written by Judge Frank Easterbrook, one of the most conservative judges on the court and a longtime candidate for a Republican nomination for the Supreme Court. He was joined by another Supreme Court candidate and leading intellectual: Richard Posner. Easterbrook and his colleagues (like Sotomayor’s panel) considered themselves bound by precedent: “The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states.”

The panel cited concerns of federalism and the need for the Supreme Court to bring its decisions in line with Heller if incorporation is warranted:

That the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule…. Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon. How arguments of this kind will affect proposals to “incorporate” the second amendment are for the Justices rather than a court of appeals.

Sotomayor’s two second amendment-related rulings follow a familiar pattern of relatively brief treatments of such questions. She voted on the panel in favor of the majority ruling that dismisses the right to bear arms as a fundamental right. In the first case, United States v. Sanchez-Villar (2004), the court states “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” This case is less notable than the later ruling in Maloney v. Cuomo, a 2009 per curiam opinion, where she again joins a panel in rejecting the notion that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right. The panel relies on Presser v. Illinois (1886) that preceded the incorporation of rights through the due process clause — making its application more problematic for gun rights advocates.

However, the Seventh Circuit relies on some of the same cases in reaching the same result:

Anyone who doubts that Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller have “direct application in [this] case” need only read footnote 23 in Heller. It says that Presser and Miller “reaffirmed [Cruikshank's holding] that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.” The Court did not say that [these cases] rejected a particular argument for applying the second amendment to the states. It said that they hold “that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.” The Court added that “Cruikshank’s continuing vitality on incorporation” is “a question not presented by this case.”

If there is a case with the highest possible odds for a Supreme Court review, this is it. Not only is there a split in the circuits (among the largest Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits), but this is a well-reasoned decision by two of the most famous intellectuals in the federal court system.

In McDonald, Easterbrook framed the issue in uncomfortable terms for conservatives: asking if they care more about federalism or gun ownership. He noted that “the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule. . . . Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon.” Easterbrook said that that question would have to be answered by the Supreme Court and they appear to have received the invitation. The result will have a pronounced impact on gun ownership since states control the majority of restrictions and laws related to gun possession.

The high court took his suggestion Wednesday.

The case was notably brought by Alan Gura, the Alexandria, VA., lawyer who won the 2008 decision recognizing the individual right, District of Columbia v. Heller. The NRA v. Chicago is also pending with the Court and presumably will be held as related to the McDonald case and be cited in any decision after argument next year.

The cheerleaders of Georgia’s Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School appear to be short a cheer for separation of church and state doctrine. They have triggered a constitutional controversy by using Biblical verses as part of their displays to root for the football team to “commit to the Lord” and “take courage and do it.”

The players would break through paper signs with the Biblical verses but local youth minister Brad Scott insists that they “are not trying to push a religious cause, to shove religion down someone’s throat. The cheerleaders are just using Scripture to show motivation and inspiration to the players and the fans.” I wonder how parents would feel about some heartening Muslim passages like “He is the Mighty, the Wise One” or “The fate of each man We have bound about his neck.”

The school system received a complaint and found correctly that it constitutes “a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution for signs with Bible verses to be displayed on the football field.”

This has led to a backlash among parents who demand that the Bible be brought back to the football field.

If the verses are reintroduced, they might want to go with a few with a bit more kick:

“You . . . will also be slaughtered by my sword.” (Zephaniah 2:12-15)

“They shall be apportioned for foxes.” (Psalm 63: 11)

“Be patient; the time is coming soon. (Zephaniah 2:12-15)

“When he raises himself up, the mighty fear; Because of the crashing they are bewildered.” (Job 41:1-34)

“The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem and captured it, killing all its people and setting the city on fire.” (Judges 1:1-8)

Fort Oglethorpe Mayor Ronnie Cobb insists that he is “against them doing away with it” and that “[i]f it’s offensive to anyone, let them go watch another football game. Nobody’s forced to come there and nobody’s forced to read the signs.” Now, there is an intriguing standard: if you do not want Jesus with your football, do not come and watch the game or your children. So much for Zechariah 13:3 “If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, ‘You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.’ When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through.”

What maddens me is that the high school left out one of my favorite country music songs:

For the full story, click here.

Over the last decade, legislators have rushed to impose broader and broader restrictions on sex offenders that prohibit them from living within certain distances of churches, schools, and other locations. The result is often effective banishment or homelessness for sex offenders. Georgia’s politicians have been so careless in their legislation that officials are now recommending that sex offenders live in the forests.

We have seen how the definition of “sex offender” often leads to ridiculous and abusive results. However, even for legitimately classified sex offenders, the residential limitations have left individuals with no place to live.

Georgia laws were previously challenged in a case where it effectively banished an individual, here.

You will see the result if you venture behind an office complex in Marietta in the forest where probation officials have been sending ex-offenders to live like hermits. Other states have put offenders under bridges like trolls. Whether hermit or troll, the situation does not allow for these ex-offenders to return to productive lives in society and may actually increase the likelihood of recidivism.

These laws are very popular, but they impose restrictions that make it virtually impossible to create a stable life for ex-offenders and seem designed to force these individuals to leave the state. I was just interviewed on a case where an ex-offender was prohibited from attending church because it had children present. Such limitations raises serious constitutional questions. One would think that politicians would want ex-offenders to find spiritual guidance. Recently, a child molester succeeded in challenging restrictions that barred his access to a synagogue, here.

For the Georgia story, click here.

god

This chart suggests that the biggest turn off (outside of Christian dating sites) is a reference to God. Thus, pick up lines like “God wants us to hook up” or “Dating me will bring you closer to God” are no longer popular choices.

For example, this entry from christiandatingforfree, does not do so well outside of the religious set:

blueskyky
I am an outgoing person. I like to read books, love to travel, and go to see movies. I go to the church every Sunday and adoration chapel sometimes. I am honest and respectful. I am looking for someone like me.

Here is the correct edit for blueskyky according to the Discover study:

blueskyky
I am an outgoing person. I like to read soulless books, love to travel to secular sites, and go to see irreverent movies. I go to the Nascar every Sunday and self-adoration sessions sometimes. I am honest and skeptical. I am looking for someone like me.

Nevertheless, over at www.meetchristiansingles.com, they insist that the Almighty is the best matchmaker (working of course through their Internet service):

We define ” actively dating ” as diligently searching a dating service to find Christian singles for Christian dating. Actively writing to them instead of just passively waiting for someone to answer your Christian Personals Ad. If you are not currently dating anyone then let’s get started! Pray for God’s best. He won’t let you down when it comes to Dating or anything else in your life! God is the best Matchmaker there is, period.

However, it appears that name-dropping Bertrand Russell won’t hurt either.

For the story, click here.