Religion is under attack in America—at least this is part of the ongoing narrative from the far right.  It fits with the themes that Obama in particular and liberals in general are out to destroy the foundational institutions of the country.

It is in the context of this narrative that Michelle Malkin gets her panties all in a bunch over the new Health and Human Services directive that all employers must abide by federal guidelines to include legal contraception as part of their employee medical insurance, including employers such as church run hospitals, schools, and universities. (The churches themselves are still excluded)

Somehow, this translates to a government mandate that churches have to pay for abortions.  Bishop Paul Loverde didn’t mince words when he called the U.S. Department Health and Human Services order “a direct attack against religious liberty. This ill-considered policy comprises a truly radical break with the liberties that have underpinned our nation since its founding.”

Before I call “bullshit”, let me connect the dots.  Since the late 90′s, legal contraception has included Plan B or the morning after pill.  If you’re of a mind to view an unimplanted fertilized egg as a baby, then this becomes abortion.  So do a lot of other things, but that’s not important right now.  Further, strict Catholic doctrine holds that contraceptives of any kind are not allowed.  Hence the claim that the HHS directive is an attack on religious liberty.  Oh, and the HHS is part of the executive branch of government, so this is an order by Obama, who is evil and out to destroy us, one baby at a time.

Ok, all together now… “Bullshit!”

It is this sort of conflation that gives Conservatives the reputation of snake oil salesmen.  There are arguments to be had here, but this ain’t one of them.  For example, you might reasonably argue:

• Plan B should not be a legal contraceptive
• HHS should not require contraceptives to be covered by employee medical insurance
• The government should make no regulations on medical insurance

Fine.  Have those battles.  (Actually we did have those battles, that’s how we got here.)  But recognize, the actual argument being made is that religious run organizations are exempt from following the law in cases where they disagree with it.  It’s wrapped in the cloak of religious freedom because that issue gets people not really paying attention (and that’s a scary big bunch of them) all in a tizzy.  The larger point gets muddled because the word “abortion” is tossed around, and everyone loses their frickin’ mind.

But suppose the fictional Church of Bob declares that all girls be deflowered by the minister upon reaching menarche.  Pretty clearly no sane person would advocate that the church get a child abuse waiver because it’s part of their doctrine.  What if the Gospel according to Bob dictates that no followers will pay taxes, or no followers will enter the military?

The point being that in this country, it doesn’t matter (or at least it’s not supposed to matter) who you are or what group you belong to.  The law is the law.  Follow it or pay the consequences.  Work to get it overturned.  But are we really going to sit by and argue that any person or group should be exempt from any law because they don’t agree with it?

Try that the next time a cop pulls you over. “Gee Officer, you see… the thing is… I don’t believe in speed limits.”  If that doesn’t work, try claiming that speed limits cause abortions.

Typical Mormon Baptism

Ann Romney’s father was an adamant atheist—a reality that apparently did not sit well with her predominantly Mormon family. So 14 months after he died, she took care of that by having him baptized posthumously.

I was unaware of this, but it seems this is not an uncommon practice in Mormonism.  They have gone so far as to baptize tens of thousands of Jewish holocaust victims.  You know… just in case.

Let me be clear, I don’t think this is a political issue or liability for Romney.  Nor am I trying to make the point that Mormons are strange.  Every group has its rituals, customs, and practices that will seem strange to outsiders.  I have no doubt the church and the Romneys had nothing but good intentions here.

Still, my initial reaction was sympathy for the father who’s life had somehow been betrayed in death.  Once he was no longer in a position to choose, his “faith” was chosen for him by those who felt they knew what was best for him.  I would be more than a little pissed-off if this were to happen to me, but then I’d be rather dead at that point, so I guess I wouldn’t really know.

But in thinking further, it occurs to me that we do this sort of thing all the time.  Religious funeral ceremonies for irreligious people because it’s important to the family aren’t all that uncommon.  What’s more, there are lots of babies baptized in this culture, and they aren’t in any more of a position to choose than the dead.  Although I can’t help but feel that choosing a starting point for someone (a baby) that has never made a choice, and has a lifetime to re-choose, is a much more innocent gesture than reversing the choice of someone who has made a pretty clear choice and has no opportunity to re-choose.  Which is maybe why I can’t shake the feeling of revulsion here.

16-year old Cranston West student Jessica Ahlquist

To quote a favorite young lady of mine, “People suck.”

At Rhode Island’s Cranston High School West, student Jessica Ahlquist took issue with the banner hanging in the school labeled “School Prayer.”  She successfully sued her state-funded public school to have a it removed.  This was a classic textbook case of separation of church and state, and U.S. District Court Judge Ronald R. Lagueux even praised her for her courage in his written decision.

This was hardly judicial activism. Any high school civics student should have recognized that this was the inescapable outcome were this issue heard in any court in the land.  Some might argue the law is wrong, but it’s hard to imagine anyone being surprised that it’s the law.

It might even be argued that had the school had the good sense to label the banner “School Pledge” and drop the Heavenly Father reference and the Amen that it would have been a completely legal banner.  But they didn’t, and so it isn’t.

Yet it isn’t the loss of this banner that diminishes Christianity. It is the violent threats of retaliation against Ahlquist from other students. In what appears to be a woefully misguided sense of defending their religion, classmates are not only verbally insulting the young activist, but physically threatening her with assault and rape, both in this life and the next. Just a few of the things posted to Facebook and Twitter are listed below.

“May that little, evil athiest teenage girl and that judge BURN IN HELL!”

“I hope there’s lots of banners in hell when your rotting in there you atheist fuck #TeamJesus”

“If this banner comes down, hell i hope the school burns down with it!”

“U little brainless idiot, hope u will be punished, you have not win sh..t! Stupid little brainless skunk!”

“Fuck Jessica alquist I’ll drop anchor on her face”

“definetly laying it down on this athiest tommorow anyone else?”

“Nothing bad better happen tomorrow #justsaying #fridaythe13th”

“Let’s all jump that girl who did the banner #fuckthatho”

“”But for real somebody should jump this girl” lmao let’s do it!”

“Hmm jess is in my bio class, she’s gonna get some shit thrown at her”

“hail Mary full of grace @jessicaahlquist is gonna get punched in the face”

“When I take over the world I’m going to do a holocaust to all the atheists”

“gods going to fuck your ass with that banner you scumbag”

“if I wasn’t 18 and wouldn’t go to jail I’d beat the shit out of her idk how she got away with not getting beat up yet”

“nail her to a cross”

“We can make so many jokes about this dumb bitch, but who cares #thatbitchisgointohell and Satan is gonna rape her.”

I know kids can be stupid and cruel, but I can’t fathom that somehow this level of malevolence is being wielded in the defense of Christianity.  Even assuming that somehow this was well intentioned, in so trying to save their religion they have made it considerably less.  Ironically, atheists are often accused of unfairly conflating religion and violence.  Yet these allegedly Christian students make a compelling case all on their own.

Young Jessica Ahlquist returns to school today for the first time since the ruling on the banner.  Her morning Tweet suggests a high degree of optimism, or maybe hope. “time for school. Woot. #bestdayever,”  I hope she’s right.

WWJD, indeed.

Cee Lo Green in Times Square

On New Year’s Eve in Times Square, Cee Lo Green re-imagined John Lennon’s atheist anthem to the horror of many.  Green performed a soulful version of the Beatles’ “Imagine” with the lyrics changed from “nothing to kill or die for / and no religion too” to “nothing to kill or die for / and all religion’s true.”

Twitter was immediately alight with outrage from Lennon fans as well as from the atheist community.  Fair enough.  Beatles fans are notoriously loyal and changing up lyrics is simply treasonous.  And despite Steve Martin’s musical assertion that Atheists Don’t Have No Songs, they do have a precious few… and Imagine was among them, at least pre-Cee Lo.

But the confounding thing would seem to be the deafening silence from the evangelical community.  Yes, at least a celebrity took a glancing blow at the godless.  But the claim that all religion is true should be as disconcerting to Christian fundamentalists  as claims of no god at all.

Activist Christians are pretty adamant there is but one true religion and everyone else is hell-bound.  Further, they complain loudly of being victimized, marginalized, and discriminated against at everything from not being wished “Merry Christmas” by Wal-Mart greeters to not being able to teach mythology as science in the classroom.  So, why doesn’t Cee Lo’s lyrical twist have their collective white cotton panties all in a bunch?

I guess maybe Evangelicals don’t feel threatened by pantheists?  Yet?

My morning coffee was interrupted by a gentle knocking on the front door.  On the other side was a delightful older woman and her apprentice proselytizer sporting bibles, Watchtower magazines, and other paraphernalia of the trade.

She opened by explaining they were there to make sure I understood what the bible had to say, because they’ve found many people don’t know.  I politely replied that I had a bible, had read it, and was pretty familiar with what was inside.  I finished by explaining that I really didn’t feel the need for any additional guidance today.

That should have been the end of it, save for a few pleasantries, and I could return to my cooling cup of Joe and my newspaper.  But no.

She reaches into her stack of pamphlets and pulls one out while saying that perhaps she might interest me in some information on God’s creation because science is constantly trying to disprove it, and I might need to know how to respond.

It was at that moment I wished I was a woman and could pull off that whole finger-wagging head-shaking “Oh no you did not” indignation move.  But alas, I’m just a gesture impaired male.  Either way, it was clear my coffee was going to get colder.

I responded, “I’m sorry, but you have to understand that science is not trying to disprove religious mythology.  That is neither its purpose nor its intent.  It exists to explain nature in a way that allows us to predict and manipulate it.  This is a role that religion does not fulfill, nor aspire to fill.  Science is dependent on a method of discovery and rigorous explanation that is completely indifferent to your beliefs.  Science is not a democracy, nor is it dependent on faith.  You don’t get to pick and choose where it leads.”

“You drove up here in a car whose existence is the product of chemistry, metallurgy, physics, and a dozen other scientific disciplines.  You have a cell phone in your purse, you’re wearing synthetic blend clothes, and you’re schlepping out brochures drafted on computers and produced on high-speed printing presses.”

“The world you live in is the product of science.  It’s unfortunate that you feel threatened by aspects of science, but unless you’re willing to go back to your cave and huddle around the fire you need to find a way your theology can coexist with it.  Anything less is a major act of hypocrisy on your part.”

Science doesn’t want to play in your sandbox.  Stop dragging it in.

If you’re a fan of Rush Limbaugh, you should know that he thinks you’re a moron.  Further, he thinks you’re so into him that you’re unlikely to listen to anyone else.  Which I guess means he thinks you’re an ignorant moron.  There. Feel better?

On Captain Blowhard’s radio show yesterday, he excoriated Obama for sending 100 special forces troops to central Africa to aid in the hunt for Joseph Kony and his Lord’s Resistance Army.

Now a reasonable person might have opposed this on the grounds that the U.S. has no strategic interest in the area and the last thing we need right now is a foot in another foreign military action.

Instead, Limbaugh, not being constrained by reasonableness, ranted that Obama was sending troops to kill Christians in defense of Muslims.  Specifically, he said:

You never heard of Lord’s Resistance Army?  Well, proves my contention, most Americans have never heard of it, and here we are at war with them.  Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians.  It means God.  I was only kidding.  Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians.  They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan.  And Obama has sent troops, United States troops to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them.

Rush is certainly right that most Americans have never heard of the LRA.  In fact, I’ll bet he’s counting on that. But just the briefest bit of research reveals the LRA is a guerilla group recognized by the U.S. as a terrorist organization.  They roam through Central Africa, and are accused of horrific atrocities, having killed an estimated 30,000 people over the last 20 years.  Under their leader, Joseph Kony, the LRA is accused of mass rape, mutilation of victims by cutting off body parts such as lips and noses, kidnapping young girls to use as sex slaves, and forcing young boys to become child soldiers.

Oh, and by the way, Kony has said he is a “spokesperson” of God.  Which, in retrospect, I guess I should have led with.  After all, if he’s on a mission from God, well, all right then.

Are they Christians?  Well, they say they are and I’ll take them at their word. But I’m guessing these aren’t the sort of folks any of Rush’s audience will be inviting to a church supper anytime soon.  That Limbaugh would even attempt to embrace these horrific people as kindred souls is beyond the pale.

I’d really like to call Limbaugh an idiot about now.  The trouble is, what he’s doing isn’t stupid.  It’s manipulative. It’s dishonest. But there’s a certain genius to it.  He’s very aware of the influence he holds over his audience. He knows they are helpless sheep to be herded as he pleases.  No, Rush is no idiot.  But he knows his listeners are.

The recent execution of the questionably guilty Troy Davis in Georgia has sparked a lot of discussion around whether or not the death penalty is “right”.  The evidence certainly supports the case that capital punishment is not a cost effective solution, nor is it an effective deterrent.  It is applied with a decided racial bias, and its inherent irreversibility is problematic given that at least some innocent people are irrefutably being convicted.

Yet the key point would seem to be that this is not a data-driven decision for most people.  It is a moral one.  Or at least that’s how most people seem to rationalize it.

I strongly suspect that the lion’s share of people are not as morally certain about capital punishment as they claim, or at least not as unconditional in their opposition or favor of it.

To be clear, I’m not talking about personal life and death situations here.  A bad guy is holding a knife at your kid’s throat and you’ve got a clean temple shot, do you take it?  For most of us, absolutely.  But that’s a situation of imminent and immediate danger.  And I will contend the morality of that situation is quite different from situations in which a group of people not in present danger make a choice to end someone else’s life.  The question is not whether or not you would ever kill.  Rather, at its root, the question is whether or not society has the right, as a group, to take another life.  (The government being, ostensibly, just a manifestation of society or of a group of people.)

Many people do claim they are morally and unequivocally opposed to capital punishment. The assertion is that government, and by extension, society, doesn’t have the right to kill.  Yet, in a very real sense, we the people make all kinds of life and death decisions.

As a country, we wage wars.  When that happens we know that people on both sides will die.  We may not individually choose who dies, but as a group we are sending other human beings to their death.

The National Organ Transplant group makes more specific life and death decisions every day.  People specifically choose winners and losers, and the losers die.

These may seem like off-topic references, but in these and many more cases, society chooses to sacrifice some people for the greater good.  Clearly, we’re already on the slippery slope, but arguably this doesn’t specifically address death as punishment.  Perhaps we can draw a line there.

But even death as punishment gets a little fuzzy.  Consider that today the U.S. military executed Anwar al-Awlaki.  The guy was a very influential al-Qaida operative, but he was also a U.S. citizen.  Remember back in May when Seal Team 6 famously dispatched Osama bin Laden?  How were these not examples of capital punishment?  Either of those guys could have been captured, returned to the States for trial, and held for life in a maximum security facility.  Yet very few people advocated for that.

The practical matter remains that the objective of removing dangerous people is the increased safety and security of our citizens.  Sending a local serial killer to prison for life accomplishes that.  Capturing bin Laden does not.  His followers would have created additional threats for Americans were he only in jail.  We are safer if he’s dead.  Many people who are adamant the death penalty is immoral would acknowledge that.  Therefore, it seems clear that, with the exception of true pacifists, moral opposition to capital punishment has its limits.

At the other end of the spectrum, people finding the death penalty morally sound tend to find boundaries somewhat more easily.   It’s a pretty rare person that advocates capital punishment for jay-walking or shoplifting.  Even the most ardent Evangelical stops short of arguing for stoning people who picks up sticks on Saturday as commanded by the Lord in Numbers 15:32-36.  There are arguments to had with regard to how heinous the crime should be to warrant the death penalty, but basically everyone agrees there are limits to its application.

My personal position is that I do not consider myself morally opposed to capital punishment.  I do find there are rare but real situations in which it is the sentence that achieves a demonstrably greater good for society.  And I do firmly believe that society gets to make decisions in its collective best interest, and that such decisions may extend to the well-being or even the life of individuals. However, in large part, I do find the death penalty is expensive, ineffective, and impractical.  It is very nearly almost never the best solution.

That said, I also believe it’s morally reprehensible to support the death penalty out of a sense of vengeance.  And whether they admit it to themselves or not, many, if not most, advocates will find vengeance at the core of their motivation.  They may cite religious morality in terms of Old Testament support for retributive punishment, or they may talk about justice and how the person deserved to die for what they did.  Regardless, it all comes back to some form of Godly or personal vengeance.  And I can’t abide that.

While it’s important to understand your position, it’s perhaps more important to have explored the boundaries of that position as well as the underlying motivations that led you there.  So where are you?  And why?

Last night, New York State made history on a couple of counts.  Most prominently, it became the sixth and largest state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Secondarily, the passage of the bill happened because four Republicans crossed the aisle and signed on to the legislation in the State Senate.  These people should be lauded as they will doubtless face repercussions for stepping out of party ranks.  They did what they believed was right, without regard to their political futures.

However, while these two accomplishments are overdue and encouraging, the late night Albany session also produced approvals of several other policies which are going largely unnoticed in all the hoopla.

Buried on page two of this story is a brief mention that also approved was a tuition hike for SUNY Schools that will result in a 30% increase over the next five years.  For parents of teen children, this is not small potatoes.  This means a year’s expenses that currently cost $19k would rise to almost $25k by 2016.

Also approved was Governor Cuomo’s property tax cap.  The cap limits property tax growth to 2% or the rate of inflation in any year.  There’s no doubt that New York’s property taxes are ridiculously expensive, but as I’ve written about before, the tax cap is an ugly solution.  It virtually guarantees preemptive maximum tax increases every year because local governments and schools can’t take the risk of keeping taxes low and then not being able to cover expenses in future years.

So while marriage equality and non-partisan action are things to feel good about, plan to have your wallet drained for college tuition and property taxes.

Mashable reports, “Soon after NBC aired a pre-taped segment for a golf tournament that twice omitted the words “under God” from the United States Pledge of Allegiance, the Twittersphere erupted into a fury of controversy.” (See the video here.)

Meanwhile, my better half wondered aloud on her blog today why we consistently manufacture mountains out of mole hills.  There’s little to suggest this was an overt message as much as a poor editing choice.  As she notes, “one nation” and “indivisible” also get left out at points.  And no one is screaming that NBC is advocating a new civil war.

Yet I’d approach the question somewhat differently.  What if NBC did do this on purpose?  I doubt that’s the case, but so what if it is?  The majority of the outrage seems to be coming from Christian groups who are apparently maligned, abused, and oppressed because the phrase “under God” was left out.  Really?  Just because you can’t force everyone to be like you doesn’t mean you’re being discriminated against.  Despite Michele Bachmann’s efforts, this is (not yet) a theocracy.  The very fact the words “under God” are in the Pledge are a nod to the reality that some 90% of Americans worship God in one form or another.  But it’s not a requirement to be an American.

Even as an atheist, I don’t and won’t advocate for the return of the Pledge to its pre-1954 godless state.  This is primarily because “under God” is a harmless and somewhat meaningless phrase when spoken the the context of a mass pledge.  It has personal meaning to many people when they say it because they know what they mean by it.  Fine. No harm done.  But hearing the person next to you say “under God” doesn’t remotely mean they share your meaning.  By “God” they could be referring to Shiva, Odin, or the rabbit’s foot in their pocket they happen to worship.  Or they might just be reciting it they way they learned in school and the words have no meaning whatsoever.  It might be just a rote saying.  And if hearing someone say something is meaningless, can it really be meaningful when they don’t?

I’ve been having a protracted email discussion with someone who’s a very fervent Christian and also a staunch conservative.  Anyone paying any attention to American politics will be quick to observe this is not exactly a rare breed—a point which I have trouble reconciling in my feeble brain.  It seems to me that Christian Conservative should be an oxymoron, at least within the context of what the conservative agenda has revealed itself to be in this country.

To that end, I posed the following question to my pen-pal this morning, and I’m posing it here as well in the hopes of generating some conversation and insight.

Presumably a Christian’s worldly politics are aligned with what they feel Jesus would advocate for if he were here today.  In essence, WWJD?  Yet most of the fundamentalist Christians seem strongly aligned politically with the conservatives.  I would go so far as to say there is a pretty strong correlation between those who profess to model their lives on Jesus and those who vote conservative.

It strikes me that in his day, Jesus was a flaming liberal.  He advocated for the poor, the downtrodden, and the sick.  He accepted everyone. He turned the other cheek. He taught to give away your worldly possessions, help your neighbors, and love everybody. He was persecuted precisely because he stood as an organizer of the people and was seen as a threat to the power structure of the day.

While I can understand Jesus might be strongly pro-life on abortion, most of the remaining conservative agenda seems to me to be against what Jesus would do.

• Reduce or eliminate social security (meaning many elderly will live in poverty)
• Reduce or eliminate Medicare/Medicaid (meaning most poor and elderly will not receive adequate medical care)
• Place the tax burden disproportionately on the backs of the non-rich
• Eliminate unions (removing the voice of the people)
• Eliminate environmental regulations (leading to pollution, extinctions, ecosystem damage)
• Reduce spending on education
• Reduce spending on assistance for the poor
• Increase militarism, don’t negotiate with our enemies

Note that all the bullets above are references to policy positions, proposals, or legislation backed by conservative politicians within the last year.  This is not about what they are saying, but about what they are actually doing.  (It seems Jesus would be big on the whole doing part as opposed to just giving lip service to high ideals.)  I can’t fathom Jesus entreating his followers to get behind any of this.

In that light, if good Christians are truly trying to create a world Jesus would be proud of, why are they primarily standing behind people and policies it seems Jesus would have reviled?  I don’t get it.