FFRF Sues Rick Perry Over Prayer Rally

Good news! There is an organization willing to stand up to Governor Rick Perry (R-Texas) and his dangerous entanglement of his official office with religious extremist, heterosexual supremacist organizations like the American Family Association. It's called the Freedom from Religion Foundation and they are suing the governor over Perry's proposed prayer rally called "The Response" where he has invited all the nation's governors to join him in praying to Jesus to help our country.

USA Today has the details:

The Freedom from Religion Foundation argues in its lawsuit filed in Houston that Republican Gov. Rick Perry's day of prayer and fasting would violate the constitutional ban on the government endorsing a religion. The event, which is called The Response and is billed as Christian-only, is scheduled for Aug. 6 at Houston's Reliant Stadium.

The complaint alleges Perry violated the First Amendment's establishment clause by organizing, promoting and participating in the event.

"The answers for America's problems won't be found on our knees or in heaven, but by using our brains, our reason and in compassionate action," said Dan Barker, a co-director of the foundation. "Gov. Perry's distasteful use of his civil office to plan and dictate a religious course of action to 'all citizens' is deeply offensive to many citizens, as well as to our secular form of government."

There are some complicated issues here. Clearly, Rick Perry has the right to pray (or not) to who or what ever he wants to. The question is, can he, in his official capacity as Governor of a state, issue a call to prayer without overstepping the bounds of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. If he was doing so as a private citizen there would be no constitutional question. Then the question would be a political one: is it possible for a governor (or any high elected official) to act in a whole private capacity?

As an atheist/agnostic myself anything that challenges the arrogance of believers that everyone has to believe the way they do I will support. I immediately donated money to FFRF upon hearing their lawsuit, which they will inevitably lose, but their point is an important one. Not everyone believes in Rick Perry's god and it is hubris to declare that all citizens must join him on our knees to find solutions to our nation's problems.

EQME Plans 2012 Marriage Equality Ballot Measure

Well, well, well! The LGBT community will not only be playing defense of our civil rights in the 2012 election in Minnesota but will also be playing offense in Maine. 

Equality Maine has announced that they will be attempting to put this question before voters on the November 2012 ballot:

Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?

More interestingly, Equality Maine also released the information that marriage equality is a majority position in Maine, according to recent polls.

The Bangor Daily News reports:

“We’ve changed hearts and minds during ‘No on One,’ and since then, many more Mainers have changed their hearts and continue to change their minds,” said Smith in a Thursday release. “We have been going door to door, talking to them and hearing their journey toward support. In two separate polls, conducted over the last five months, 53 percent of Mainers surveyed said they support letting gay and lesbian couples marry here.”

[...]

Supporters must get 57,277 signatures to get the question on the November 2012 ballot.

Gay marriage supporters hope to build on momentum in Rhode Island and in New York, which earlier this month became the sixth state to allow gay marriage.

In 2009, Maine voters used a People's Veto to overturn a marriage equality bill by a vote of 53% to 47% on Question 1 that had been passed through the legislature and signed by Governor Baldacci at the time.

Rick Perry Invites All Governors To Pray

Rick Perry, Republican Governor of Texas

The Governor of Texas has issued an invitation to the governors of every state in the Union to come to Texas and pray with him on August 6, 2011 in Houston. He is collaborating with notorious hate-group American Family Association to put on something called "The Response USA".

The Friendly Atheist reports:

As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.Some problems are beyond our power to solve, and according to the Book of Joel, Chapter 2, this historic hour demands a historic response. Therefore, on August 6, thousands will gather to pray for a historic breakthrough for our country and a renewed sense of moral purpose.
I sincerely hope you’ll join me in Houston on August 6th and take your place in Reliant Stadium with praying people asking God’s forgiveness, wisdom and provision for our state and nation. There is hope for America. It lies in heaven, and we will find it on our knees.

Earlier this year Gov. Perry made headlines when he called on all Texans to pray with him for rain, since there is a fierce drought going on leading to historic wildfires. The Governor went as far to issue an official proclamation:

WHEREAS, throughout our history, both as a state and as individuals, Texans have been strengthened, assured and lifted up through prayer; it seems right and fitting that the people of Texas should join together in prayer to humbly seek an end to this devastating drought and these dangerous wildfires;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICK PERRY, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. I urge Texans of all faiths and traditions to offer prayers on that day for the healing of our land, the rebuilding of our communities and the restoration of our normal and robust way of life.

This is clearly a politician who does not believe in a separation between church and state, and who will use a political office to promote a particular religious-based ideology. And now he is thinking of running for President of the United States. He has never lost an election. Beware this man!

WATCH: Family Research Council Exposed As Hate Group (With Their Own Words)

Eddie Long Settles 4 Sexual Misconduct Cases

Things that make you go hmmmmm. Eddie Long, an Atlanta-area evangelical preacher who was accused of sexual misconduct with four young Black men involved in his church's youth ministry, has decided to settle the lawsuits for an undisclosed sum and guaranteed secrecy.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:

Attorneys involved in the four lawsuits against Long, the LongFellows Youth Academy and the 25,000-member Lithonia megachurch said the case had been settled but declined to comment further. The case is expected to be dismissed "with prejudice" -- meaning the defendant cannot be sued by the plaintiffs again in the same alleged offense -- by close of business Friday, said Barbara Marschalk, who represents New Birth Missionary Baptist Church and LongFellows Youth Academy.

B.J. Bernstein, who represents the four men who sued Long, New Birth and the academy, also confirmed the lawsuits had been settled. The academy was named in three of the suits.

Long, pastor of the Lithonia megachurch, which has an international following, had denied the men's allegations through a spokesman shortly after they first became public in September and told his congregation he planned to "vigorously" fight them.

The accusations made against Long by Anthony Flagg, Spencer LeGrande, Jamal Parris and Maurice Robinson alleged that the bishop used his influence, trips, gifts and jobs to coerce them into sexual relations.

Of course, does the fact that the terms of the agreement were undisclosed and the parties are not able to discuss the amount of money involved change how Long is viewed by his parishioners? These people believe  an old white guy in the sky watches over every word, thought and deed so reality-based they are not:

Kamelya Hinson, a Web content editor who lives in Decatur, said the settlement has not shaken her faith.

"It doesn't make me think he's guilty or anything," she said. "I decided when this came out that I loved my pastor unconditionally. Even if he came out and grabbed the mic and said ‘I'm guilty,' it wouldn't change the way I feel about him. I wouldn't be angry like a lot of people are. You can't walk away after 15 years of being a member of a church."

Hinson said it doesn't bother her that she may never know whether the allegations are true. "He's done 1,000 good things," she said, "and he may or may not have done four really bad things."

A fool and his money are soon parted.

Hat/tip to Rod 2.0

Religion Is Like A Penis...

Religion is like a penis.


It's fine to have one.

It's fine to be proud of it.

But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around.

And PLEASE don't try to shove it down my throat.

Hat/tip to Sara Whitman.

REPORT: Why 2012 Is Not Year To Repeal Prop 8

There is a debate going on in California (again) about when (or if) the LGBT community should attempt to repeal Proposition 8 by circulating and passing a constitutional amendment to restore marriage equality in 2012.

REPORT ON WEST HOLLYWOOD TOWN HALL
The state's largest LGBT political advocacy group, Equality California, is hosting 12 town halls around the state seeking LGBT community input on the momentous decision to attempt to pass a ballot measure which would enact marriage equality and overrule Proposition 8. To that end, MadProfessah was invited to attend the 2nd of these events at the West Hollywood Auditorium on Sunday May 22 (Harvey Milk Day) as part of the panel. Other members were David Codell, a leading gay attorney who participated in the California marriage case and is one of the smartest legal minds in the state, Jim Carroll, interim Executive Director of Equality California, and Andrea Shorter, Director of Coalitions and Marriage at EQCA.

About 75 people showed up for the event which started a bit late at 5:45pm. Incoming EQCA Executive Director Roland Palencia was introduced to the crowd but did not say anything. During the event David explained that if a new constitutional amendment were to be passed then that would immediately make the Perry v Brown lawsuit moot. He also gave his opinion on the disposition of that case, making it clear that he felt it was very unlikely that the California Supreme Court would rule that the Proposition 8 proponents have standing to pursue the federal lawsuit when the Attorney General and Governor of the state have declined to defend the ballot measure in federal court. According to his timeline, oral arguments should happen in September with a ruling in December and the 9th Circuit ruling soon after that in early 2012. That would lead to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling sometime before June 2013. David also thought that the U.S. District Judge James Ware would quickly dispose of the offensive challenge to the original Perry v Schwarzenegger decision based on the sexual orientation of the judge, saying he was looking forward to reading the decision to see just how sharply the judge smacks down the heterosexual supremacists for making the ridiculous claim that a gay judge's sexuality or relationship status would have any impact on his ruling. David also made the point repeatedly that never in the history of America has any state passed a ballot measure to enact legislation to provide a right to LGBT people. There was a question from the audience about this later and I explained that there have been pro-gay ballot measure results (Maine 2005, Arizona 2006, Washington State 2009). Maine 2005 was the defeat of the repeal of a statewide gay civil right bill on employment. Arizona 2006 was the defeat of a measure to ban domestic partnerships and same-sex marriage (in 2008 Arizona passed  a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage only). Washington 2009 was the statewide approval of a referendum on a comprehensive domestic partnership law recently passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor. These are all different situations from asking voters to overturn a previously passed initiative statute and constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage while a lawsuit is pending.

Jim Carroll's job was to give the results of a new poll about marriage equality conducted by Binder Research paid for by former Ambassador James Hormel and Love Honor Cherish. You may recall LHC was the group who moved forward with a Repeal Prop 8 campaign in 2010 (and failed to turn in any signatures) despite most of the LGBT community deciding in summer 2009 that this was not the right time to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars to pass a pro-gay ballot measure that year. Carroll presented a powerpoint which demonstrated that there has been very little change in public support for marriage equality since the last time the LGBT community polled in 2009. Carroll tried to educate the audience about the difference between polls of "adults" and polls of likely voters. California has 37 million people, and about 24 million adults, of which 21 million are registered to vote and about 15 million who are likely to vote in the next election. These 15 million are, on average, whiter, older and more conservative than the population as a whole which is "majority minority." The poll results Carroll discussed were for this group of likely voters.

THE LATEST POLLING RESULTS ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN CALIFORNIA
The topline result is that on the question of marriage equality, i.e. "Do you support or oppose allowing same-sex couples to be legally married" the 2011 numbers are 45% Yes-45% No 10% Undecided compared to the 2009 numbers of 47% Yes 48% No 5% Undecided. This is a somewhat shocking result in the light of numerous national polls (Gallup, CNN)showing majority support in the adult population for marriage equality in the last 6 months or so.

Unsurprisingly, support for marriage equality varies depending on how you ask the question. For example, if the question is about repealing Proposition 8 there is majority support (51%). Note that the margin of error in the telephone poll of 900 likely voters May 10-14 (with oversampling in African-American and English-speaking Asian Pacific Islander communities) is 3.3 percentage points. Look at the graphic above to see that support in communities of color for marriage equality has slightly increased with opposition slightly decreasing.

Binder also polled on the question of explicitly adding a religious exemption to a ballot measure which legalizes same-sex marriage (and thus also implicitly repeals Proposition 8) and support went down from the repeal Prop 8 numbers.

Would you vote yes or no on a ballot initiative that would legalize civil marriage for same-sex couples, on the condition that clergy or religious institutions are never required to perform a marriage that goes against their religious beliefs?

47% Yes 43% No 10% Undecided

Binder calls this an increase in support because the 47% number is higher than the 45% baseline support for the marriage equality question. However, the question "Would you vote yes or no on a ballot initiative that would legalize civil marriage for same-sex couples" was not included in the poll. The assumption is that the results of this question would track identically with the results on the marriage equality question.

In fact, in a bizarre case of fallacious reasoning Binder lumps all the respondents who said they support marriage equality OR repealing Proposition 8 OR would vote yes on a ballot measure with a religious exemption and comes up with a support of 58% Yes and 34% No. The notion that you can presume that people who will vote for a measure that does ONE of these things will also vote for a measure which does ALL of these things is simply ridiculous. (Mathematical geek aside: There is a huge logical difference between an OR and an AND.)

WHY TRYING TO REPEAL PROP 8 IN 2012 IS A BAD IDEA
All in all, I went into the Town Hall undecided and left pretty convinced that a 2012 ballot measure campaign to restore marriage equality to California is a bad idea. Especially when there is a pending federal court challenge which may not only restore marriage equality in California but support the legal argument to strike down the 30 other constitutional amendments which ban marriage equality around the nation. There are numerous other states which will likely have anti-gay marriage measures on the ballot (Minnesota, North Carolina and Indiana) and there may be states which have affirmative pro-gay measures on the ballot (Oregon and Maine). For the amount of money it takes to expand California from civil unions to full marriage equality one could have a good shot of winning one or both of the affirmative measures and possibly defeating one or some of the anti-gay measures. Nationally, it just doesn't make sense to me to spend 30-plus million dollars to enact marriage equality in California when there are states which do not have basic laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (29) and gender identity (38).

We shall see what happens in the future, since EQCA says they will report back to the community in September 2011. LHC says that we can file ballot language and collect signatures before the California Supreme Court rules on the standing issue. Depending on the decision, the signatures do not have to be submitted. I'm not opposed to this idea, but I think it will be very very difficult to not submit the signatures to the secretary of state in March 2012 if either the Cal Sup. Ct. or  9th Circuit doesn't rule our way. Of course if a measure does get submitted and qualified I would support it, not monetarily but I would vote for it.

I just think that 2012 is not the right year to repeal Proposition 8. In order to make that decision to move forward I have three pre-conditions which need to be met: 1) Show majority support outside of the margin of error for marriage equality in the state in multiple polls 2) Significant (7 digit) quantities of money in the bank and 3) a open, accountable leadership structure and detailed plan for how to run a statewide ballot measure campaign.

WATCH: Devastating Testimony Against MN Marriage Amendment

State Representative Steve Simon (DFL) testified in opposition to a proposed anti-gay constitutional amendment to "restrict marriage as between a man and a woman," which in Minnesota needs to pass both houses by a simple majority this year and then be approved by a majority of voters on the ballot in 2012 to become law.

Rep. Simon asked a devastating question which should surely give even the most ardent heterosexual supremacist pause before a final vote on the measure: "How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves if he wants them around?" (Simon was responding to the fact that much of the opposition to marriage equality and support for writing discrimination in the Minnesota state constitution appeared to be religiously motivated despite the fact that the state only licenses civil marriages which does not influence who any church has to marry or recognize as married.) The House committee later voted 10-7 to pass the amendment to the Senate floor.

Republicans have a brand new majority in both House and Senate as of the 2010 so they should have the votes to put the measure on the ballot. It does not require Democratic Governor Mark Dayton's signature, who has expressed his opposition to the measure and his support for marriage equality.

Interestingly, at least one House Republican, Afghanistan veteran John Kriesel has announced that he will oppose the measure.

The Minnesota Star-Tribune quotes Rep. Kriesel:

"I look at it as: We are all equal," said the first year representative from Cottage Grove.

"It is not right. I can't do it. I'm very upset about this vote. I don't like it. I think it sends the wrong message. You live once in your life and I've learned that the hard way," said the military veteran, who lost his legs while serving in Iraq Afghanistan. "You never know when it is going to be your time. People fight to find happiness....You find someone you love and now other people are saying because I don't consider that normal, you can't do it?"

"It's just wrong," Kriesel said. "There is not anything that can move me on this."

He may be only Republican lawmaker to oppose the amendment. He said he is "working hard" to bring other colleagues along.

Let's hope there are more fair-minded Republicans like Rep. Kriesel in the Minnesota Legislature.

This Idiot Thinks Homosexuality Is Illegal In Montana

State Representative Ken Peterson (R-MT)

There's been some very anti-gay legislation popping up in Montana recently and a lot of it is either propagated or facilitated by Representative Ken Peterson, a conservative Mormon Republican who controversially chairs the Judiciary Committee. The Montana legislature has (unsuccessfully) attempted to ban local municipalities from enacting local LGBT equality ordinances and refused to remove Montana's legally unenforceable sodomy law from the statute books.

As Zack Ford reports at Think Progress' Wonk Room, Rep. Peterson thinks that "homosexuality is still a crime in Montana":

Peterson argues there are still at least two prosecutable offenses: 1) The “recruitment” of non-gays and 2) public displays of same-sex affection:

— Homosexuals can’t go out into the heterosexual community and try to recruit people, or try to enlist them in homosexual acts. ‘Here, young man, your hormones are raging. Let’s go in this bedroom, and we’ll engage in some homosexual acts. You’ll find you like it.’
— In my mind, if they were engaging in acts in public that could be construed as homosexual, it would violate that statute. It has to be more than affection. It has to be overt homosexual acts of some kind or another… If kissing goes to that extent, yes. If it’s more than that, yes.

Zack goes on to detail the multiple ways in which such views, if reflected in actual public policy, would violate the Constitution (First Amendment, multiple Supreme Court decisions such as Lawrence v Texas and Romer v Evans).

Lawrence ruled all sodomy laws unconstitutional so whether or not Montana or Kansas or other states repeal their extant sodomy laws, any prosecutions (or persecutions) based on those statutes would be thrown out by a court instantaneously. Romer said that laws based primarily on animus (against the LGB community) are presumptively unconstitutional, so the idea that "homosexuality" can be criminalized directly violates these legal principles.

It seems to me one should test Rep. Peterson's resolve and have a KISS-IN in Missoula, Montana. Any takers?

GSS Shows Support Exceeds Opposition To Marriage Equality

University of Illinois Sociologist Darren Sherkat has crunched the numbers of the 2010 General Social Survey to reveal that for the first time, more Americans support marriage equality than oppose the idea.

Sherkat says on his blog:

For the first time, a legitimate scientific survey is showing very clearly that the proportion of Americans who agree or strongly agree that same sex marriage should be legal exceeds the proportion who either oppose or strongly oppose marital rights.  46% of Americans favor civil rights, while 40% oppose civil rights, and the remainder just can’t seem to decide. Of course, this is an incredible shift from the first time the question was asked in 1988–when 73% of Americans opposed marital rights, but it is also a seismic change from 2004, when only 30% of Americans supported marriage rights for same sex couples, and 56% opposed civil rights.

Sherkat has analyzed the differences in support of and opposition to marriage equality by a number of different identifying characteristics such as race, religion, political affiliation.

For example, Sherkat has written a paper debunking the "zombie meme" that Black people were responsible for Proposition 8's passage (and the subsequent implication that African-Americans are more homophobic than white people). He demonstrates he racial gap in opposition to marriage equality in the following graph:

The reason for the racial gap in opposition to marriage equality, Sherkat explains in "Race, Religion, and Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage," is primarily explained in the different rates of religiosity among Black Americans and white Americans. Even so, in the last 6 years since same-sex marriage has been a reality in Massachusetts and beyond, opposition in the Black community has fallen faster (17 percentage points) than opposition in the White community (15.4 percentage points).

Sherkat's most interesting result is in his analysis of how religious beliefs and partisan affiliation impact opposition to marriage equality .

As Sherkat (somewhat irreverently) explains:

Notice that among fundies, who believe the bible is the inerrant word of god, support is very low even if you are a strong Democrat–but it’s twice as high as it is among Republican fundies. Among moderates and seculars, the effect of political party is quite dramatic—67% of strong Democrats who think the Bible  was inspired by god support same sex marriage, while among Republicans with the same beliefs support is 18%. Among people who think the bible is bunk, 82% of strong democrats support same sex marriage, while only a third of republican non-believers support civil rights. Party matters.

I wonder what the Log Cabin Republicans have to say about these results?

Celebrity Friday: Sam Arora Reneges On Marriage Equality Support

Maryland Delegate Sam Arora ran on a campaign of support
 for marriage equality and accepted thousands of dollars in LGBT donations

As the bill to legalize marriage equality in Maryland, HB 175/S 116, appears to have run into some very serious legislative hurdles in the lower House right before a key Judiciary Committee vote despite passing the Senate 25-21 last week.  LGBT activists are shocked and appalled by the shameful actions of a young progressive politician named Sam Arora who co-sponsored and ran for election on a platform of marriage equality but who has now indicated he will will vote against the bill if it reaches the house floor but will vote for it in the judiciary committee.

John Aravosis and other LGBT activists are perplexed by Arora's traitorous actions since as recently as a month ago, Arora had tweeted his support for marriage equality.

Now that tweet has been deleted from Arora's twitter stream and he is telling associates he doesn't think his religious principles allow him to "redefine marriage," which is basically a right-wing talking point. marriage is not REDEFINED when discriminatory legal barriers to those who can access it are removed. It's about treating LGBT people equally regardless of the gender of the person they love and their sexual orientation.

For his traitorous actions is possibly assisting in the demise of Maryland's civil marriage protection act, Sam Arora is todays Celebrity Friday. Democrats hold a 98-43 advantage in the Maryland House of Delegates but the floor vote (if it happens) is now expected to be close.

UPDATE 03/04/2011 0943 PST
Arora has released a statement saying that even though he opposes marriage equality (he supports civil unions) he will vote for the bill on the floor:

"I have heard from constituents, friends, and advocates from across the spectrum of views and have thought about the issue of same-sex marriage extensively. I understand their concern--this is a very serious issue, and one that many people feel passionately about. As the vote drew nearer, I wrestled with this issue in a way I never had before, which led me to realize that I had some concerns about the bill. While I personally believe that Maryland should extend civil rights to same-sex couples through civil unions, I have come to the conclusion that this issue has such impact on the people of Maryland that they should have a direct say. I will vote to send the bill to the floor because it deserves an up-or-down vote. On the floor, I will vote to send the bill to the governor so that Marylanders can ultimately decide this issue at the polls. I think that is appropriate."

Hmmm, I guess online pressure works! Hat/tip to Gay.AmericaBlog

VIDEO: Living Without Religion

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God.

British Homophobes Lose Another Religious-Based Lawsuit

Eunice and Owen Johns are a British couple who went to court to seek the right to foster
children and indoctrinate them with their homophobic (allegedly faith-based) views

There is a cause célèbre legal case which is exciting religious heterosexual supremacists on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. It pits religious belief versus non-discrimination based upon sexual orientation. The Johns are a couple of Pentecostal Christians from Derby, England who wanted to become foster parents to young children but also felt that they were not willing to "tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing."

The Johns sued the Derby City Council and lost.

Andrew Brown in The Guardian ("The law of England is not Christian") quotes Lord Munby's decision:

"We are simply not here concerned with the grant or denial of State 'benefits' to the claimants. No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not 'fit and proper' persons to foster or adopt. No one is contending for a blanket ban. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. No one is seeking to force Christians or adherents of other faiths into the closet. No one is asserting that the claimants are bigots. No one is seeking to give Christians, Jews or Muslims or, indeed, peoples of any faith, a second class status. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law, to our polity and to our way of life, that everyone is equal: equal before the law and equal as a human being endowed with reason and entitled to dignity and respect."

Additionally, the Johns case quotes an earlier decision written by Lord Laws regarding whether religious belief could exempt clerks from performing same-sex civil partnerships:

"The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified; it is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective, but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion, any belief system, cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself."


"So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious beliefs. Equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief's content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime."

It would be incredible if we could get such a strong judicial opinion about the separation of church and state from our Highest Court. Andrew Brown finished with a statement which has immediate implications for the kulturkampf (culture war) about homosexuality we are currently engaged in:

Obviously, these judgments will have a considerable effect on evangelical protestantism in this country, which has always taken the view that we are, or should be, a Christian nation. But I think the greatest effect will not be on pentecostalists like the Johnses. They can adjust quite easily to the idea that they live under a heathen or godless regime. It is the old-fashioned evangelical wing of the Church of England which will be most upset and confused by these clear statements of principle.

Repeat after me: America is NOT a Christian nation.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God.

Creationism Is "Superstitious Nonsense" Lawsuit Heard

OMG this lawsuit makes me wanna holla! A public school teacher names James Corbett previously lost a federal lawsuit at the district court level for remarks he made in class that student Chad Farnan claimed violated his first amendment religious rights. Now that decision has been appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals:

A Santa Ana federal judge ruled in 2009 that Corbett violated the First Amendment's establishment clause when he referred to Creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense" during a classroom lecture.

But the judge – noting Corbett would not have necessarily known he was violating student Chad Farnan's constitutional rights – also barred the teacher from having to pay attorney fees and damages under a "qualified immunity" defense. Qualified immunity is a form of federal protection for government employees who have violated an individual's constitutional rights.

Both sides appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit. Corbett is seeking to be vindicated; Farnan is seeking a stronger ruling against Corbett, and for Corbett's qualified immunity to be tossed out.

The 9th Circuit court, which did not make any decisions Friday, has wide discretion with this case. It can rule on any or all of the arguments presented, declare portions to be moot, and/or send the case back to the trial court.

Corbett remains in his teaching position; Farnan, who brought the lawsuit as a sophomore at Capistrano Valley High in December 2007, is now a freshman at Pepperdine University in Malibu.

The teacher also said "When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want." This is a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, an "alternative" religion. Bizarrely, Erwin Chemerinksy, who I greatly admire and is serving as the attorney for Corbett, had to argue these statements "had legitimate teaching purposes that did not promote hostility toward religion."