For nearly two years, Americans United has detailed the truth behind Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, a case brought by a chain of craft stores that claims it has a religious freedom right to deny important preventative health care to its employees.
We’ve spread the word about the consequences should the U.S. Supreme Court grant the owner of a for-profit corporation the right to make highly personal decisions for his or her employees based purely on religious dogma. The creation of a fictional “corporate conscience” that allows a company to “exercise religion” under the First Amendment is dangerously absurd.
And yet, it seems some people still don’t get what’s really going on here.
In an opinion piece published yesterday by Religion News Service, Cathy Lynn Grossman wrote that Hobby Lobby is not interested in imposing its fundamentalist Christian faith on anyone. She criticized Americans United for implying that Green has theocratic leanings.
Something has disturbed ever since the time the BLM backed off from the Bundy Ranch.
At first I was thinking they were just waiting for the heat to die down, for the media and the wingnuts attention to wander elsewhere, and then they’d return and enforce the law. It’s been almost three months now with no sign of such action, that I’m aware of.
So my disturbance, the feeling of foreboding has grown.
My news aggregator found this article that solidified what I felt. Simply put, people broke the law and got away with it. The lawless, who endlessly and hypocritically claim their love of the Constitution and the law, discovered that if they show up in numbers and with firepower they can ignore the Constitution and the law.
I feel like Prince Trask in Space Viking. When a rampaging mob kills a number of policemen on a planet he’s visiting he suggested that setting up a line of fifty anti-gravity combat cars and opening fire the second that line is crossed would have saved the lives of the officers. One of the planet’s Royal family makes it clear they won’t do such a thing.
To which Prince Trask replied, “You have a wonderful planet here. You could have done anything with it. But it’s too late now. The gates are down and the barbarians are in.”
Based on what Miranda Blue at Right Wing Watch, and others have pointed out, a better name for “the American Center for Law and Justice” would be “The American Center for Theocracy and Injustice.” It really sounds like the group has never met an anti gay law it didn’t like and the only cases when it seems to care about discrimination is when it thinks Christians are being discriminated against. Its also clearly opposed to secularism and refuses to accept the fact that the establishment clause mandates the Separation of Church and state. The group is also anti Muslim, and opposed the so called “Ground Zero Mosque.” Speaking of which, I wonder how these people feel about anti blasphemy laws in Muslim countries?
The American Center for Law and Justice, the group founded by televangelist Pat Robertson to be a right-wing counter to the American Civil Liberties Union, bills itself as a champion of the “ongoing viability of freedom and liberty in the United States and around the world.”
But the ACLJ - which has joined in the Religious Right chorus claiming that progressive policies are causing American Christians to lose their religious freedom - has never been so keen on the civil liberties of those with whom they disagree, especially in its work overseas.
You have got to read this hate watch blog post by David Neiwert,
Usually, political debates are an opportunity for candidates to provide voters with enough information for them to make informed decisions before filling out their ballots. But Wednesday night’s Republican gubernatorial primary debate in Boise, Idaho, featuring the state’s top four conservative candidates, raised more questions than it answered.
Two of the four candidates - a foul-mouthed biker from Nampa named Harley Brown and a bearded anti-abortion activist named Walt Bayes - had previously run for office but garnered few votes. Their show-stealing debate performances, broadcast on Idaho’s public television network, revealed why.
Both men were on the program at the insistence of incumbent Gov. L. Butch Otter, who was accused by his Tea Party rival, State Sen. Russ Fulcher, of inviting the men to participate so that he could avoid Fulcher’s own questions.
You won’t believe how far out two these candidates were. Bayes for one is so extreme that if he had his way, he’d ban homosexuality ( maybe even making a death penalty offense ) and if he becomes governor of Idaho he says he would openly defy the supreme court on abortion. Brown also wants to take land away from the federal government by force.
I support this ruling. Inclusive instead of exclusive or banned.
By JOSH GERSTEIN | 5/5/14 11:33 AM EDT
The Supreme Court ruled Monday, 5-4, that sectarian prayers can be presented at official government meetings without running afoul of the Constitution’s prohibition on establishment of religion.
Acting in a case brought against Greece, N.Y., over its practice of allowing local ministers to deliver prayers at town board meetings containing beliefs specific to particular Christian denominations, the court’s majority said such prayers are legally permissible as long as the government does not discriminate among those seeking to present a prayer.
“Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court’s conservative majority. “The Congress that drafted the First Amendment would have been accustomed to invocations containing explicitly religious themes of the sort respondents find objectionable.”
Kennedy also warned that putting restrictions on the content of prayers would put government officials in the inappropriate position of vetting religious views.
Hey Tom, do you realize that if Cliven had his way, you would have never even had a job as part of the US Congress? After all, as you said he doesn’t recognize the existence of the federal government. The same federal government that you used to be a part of.
People who live in the United States can’t be allowed to just pick and choose which laws they want to obey, and than insist they not be held accountable for doing so. The declaration of Independence isn’t even a legal document, unlike the constitution, so its not part of the law of the land. Cliven Bundy also isn’t standing up for the constitution either, because even ignoring everything else, the constitution recognizes the existence of the federal government and has since day one of its existence. We also wouldn’t even be a United States of America without a federal government.
This would be a reason enough not to support him, even if we ignore the fact that Cliven Bundy is a racist who thinks blacks were better off as slaves, and the origin of his nonsensical “Sovereign Citizen” ideology. Bundy is a criminal, not a hero. He’s not standing up against tyranny, and if Tom DeLay really valued the rule of law, he wouldn’t support him. I guess the rule of law is only important to him when he agrees with it.
Hope you filthy hippies are ready to get a good talking-to about your drugs and your communism and your satanic rock music, because this week it’s time to get a dose of revisionist history of the 1960s, courtesy of our textbooks for the Christian homeschooling market. Our 8th-grade text, America: Land I Love (A Beka, 1994, 2006), has no doubts about just what a terrible time the decade was, and why:
By the early 1960s, the teachings of humanist philosopher John Dewey, the father of progressive education, had permeated public education. Dewey was a leader in the secular humanist movement, which put man in place of or above God. Moral absolutes, such as those once taught in the McGuffey Readers, were replaced by humanistic ideas such as encouraging children to “follow their animal instincts” and to practice permissive “self expression” in the classroom…
God, sadly, has continued to slack off on fixing this for the past 34 years, probably because He has been busy helping with all those high school football games. In any case, those clearly illegal Supreme Court decisions were utterly at odds with the True Meaning of the Constitution:
The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution had great respect for both prayer and God’s Word. It was because of our Christian heritage that most schools had included prayer and Bible reading in their daily routines for years. The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution in a way that its writers would not have agreed with.
Half of Americans think gay marriage is in the Constitution
And how many of those 50% cited the relevant amendment (14th)? How many of them know the Constitution even has amendments? How many of them know what the Constitution is?
Aweee….. he doesnt mind if gay people TELL themselves they are married, as long as he doesnt have to agree they are actually married….by you know - law…..
However, there is a problem with his lede, and context:
Fifty percent say the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection gives gays the right to marry, while 41 percent say it does not.
Yeah, that says 50% of Americans believe gays are protected by “the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution”, not that they believe gay marriage ” is in the Constitution”
not a lie right? we can chalk this one up to not understanding how the English language portrays mathematics?
Please…….. it does not need to be said - but I will say it anyways - Jim Treacher is desperate:
I’m not sure why they’re bringing the Constitution into it anyway. It’s not like Obama follows it. Why should anybody who voted for him?
Of course, whatever is stopping Jim Treacher from bringing a suit against the President on constitutional premises is beyond me…… putting your money where your mouth is apparently not a conservative virtue.
b.t.w. Gay Peoples of the Worldz - Mr. Treacher wants you to know
“If I make a joke at gay people’s expense, as I just attempted to do, it doesn’t mean I want you to be wiped from the planet. It means I made a joke.”
so if you’re being sensitive about his ‘jokes’ at your expense, please understand that insults his sensitivities and rights to make jokes at your expense. Totally not personal….
An organization called the Jasmine Foundation for Research and Communication has published the first unofficial English translation of Tunisia’s new constitution, which was adopted a week ago on January 26, 2014.
Here’s some context and a summary from Wikipedia:
Constitution of 2014
On 23 October 2011, a Constituent Assembly was elected to draft the text of a new constitution. On 16 December 2011 they issued a constitutive law Law on the provisional organization of public authorities, which superseded the Legislative Decree of 23 March 2011 and the 1959 constitution. This law provided for three branches of government and guaranteed human rights during the time it takes for the new constitution to be written and ratified.
It was initially hoped that a constitution would be drafted within a year’s time. However, vigorous debate and two assassinations delayed the document. Progress quickened after the ruling Islamist Ennahda party agreed to give up power when a new constitution was passed. After two years of work, a 146-article draft constitution was completed. It was put to a vote on 26 January 2014, requiring a two-thirds majority to pass. The Constituent Assembly adopted the document by a 200-12 vote with 4 abstentions. President Marzouki remarked: “With the birth of this text, we confirm our victory over dictatorship”, and signed it into law the following day.
During the drafting process, the main points of contention were the role of religion in the government, the requirements to run for president, and the details of how the transition period after the document was passed would be handled. The new constitution makes Tunisia a decentralized and open government. It recognizes Islam as the official state religion, but protects freedom of belief. It provides for some restrictions on free speech, most notably in banning attacks on religion and accusations of being a non-believer. The constitution provides for gender equality, protects the nation’s natural resources and demands the government take steps to fight corruption. Executive power is divided between the president and prime minister. A newly selected cabinet led by former minister Mehdi Jomaa will oversee the country until elections are held to select a president. No date has been set, but elections are expected to take place within one year.
UPDATE: I’ve removed the embedded PDF since all day long it has consistently timed out before loading and I don’t know what the problem is. Please use the link above to access it.
From the PDF:
Tunisia is a free, independent and sovereign state. Islam is its
religion, Arabic its language, and the republic its system.
This article cannot be amended.
Freedom of opinion, thought, expression, media and publication shall be guaranteed.
These freedoms shall not be subject to prior censorship.
Running for the position of President of the Republic shall be a right
for every male and female voter who holds Tunisian nationality since
birth, whose religion is Islam.
For the sake of comparison:
- List of countries that have an official state religion
- List of countries with blasphemy and/or hate speech laws
I attempted to find out which countries have a religious requirement for the presidency, but I couldn’t find a list. I assume most conservative Muslim-majority countries do, and obviously the Vatican City would require that the Pope be a Catholic male, but beyond that…? If anyone knows of any, please leave a comment.
Countries confirmed as having a religious requirement for the head of state:
New attorney general, new game in town.
The Washington Post reports that Virginia’s new attorney general, Mark Herring, plans to announce Thursday that he believes the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The state will join two couples in asking a federal court to strike down the law.
Herring will say that Virginia has been on the “wrong side” of landmark legal battles involving school desegregation, interracial marriage and single-sex education at the Virginia Military Institute, one official said. He will make the case that the commonwealth should be on the “right side of the law and history” in the battle over same-sex marriage.
GOP heads in Virginia are probably spinning faster than a top now.