Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1855

Congress Will Likely Transfer the Mount Soledad Cross to Private Land

We are still talking about the Mount Soledad cross for some reason.

Here’s a quick recap in case you’re unfamiliar with the story: This controversy, which began nearly 25 years ago, is the longest-running Establishment Clause case in American history.

It involves the Mount Soledad cross in San Diego — a huge cross on public land erected in 1954. After the now-deceased Philip Paulson challenged the cross’ constitutionality more than two decades ago and after atheist Steve Trunk took up the case a few years ago, atheists have generally prevailed in the court system. In 2012, the Supreme Court declined to hear any more challenges from Christian groups, putting the future of the cross back in the hands of lower courts.

Steve Trunk, in front of the Mt. Soledad Cross

A year ago, U.S. District Judge Larry Burns ordered the cross to come down from the mountain within 90 days… but the ruling was stayed until the other side had a chance to appeal.

In April, lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice filed a petition with the Supreme Court saying they would be defending the cross if lower courts ruled that it had to be taken down.

And now, the House has passed a bill that will transfer the land on which the cross rests to a private Christian group… so that it’s off government property… making it legal once again. (Sneaky, eh?) The provision is tucked into the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,” which will likely get passed by the Senate this week:

[Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr.'s] provision stipulates that the defense secretary convey the memorial to the local association after agreement is reached on price. The association and any subsequent owner would be required to maintain the structure as a veterans memorial in perpetuity.

That price was once $1,300,000. No clue what it’ll go for now. Given the comfy relationship between Christian groups and the government, I’m guessing no more than a few bucks at most.

(Portions of this article have been posted before. Thanks to Brian for the link)

Dogma Debate Broadcastathon to Benefit Foundation Beyond Belief

The folks at Dogma Debate are doing a 24-hour Broadcastathon to benefit Foundation Beyond Belief.

They’ve already raised more than $30,000 (!!!).

I can’t thank David Smalley and his team enough for doing this.

I’m their final guest, so please listen in and consider making a contribution!

London Doctor Takes His Own Life After His Muslim Family Insists He’s Mentally Ill For Being Gay

The Islamic holiday Eid al-Fitr is supposed to be a day of unity. For Nazim Mahmood, a British doctor, it appears to have been the day when his family rejected his being gay — with fatal consequences:

A Harley Street doctor killed himself by jumping from his luxury penthouse apartment after his mother asked him to seek “a cure” for being gay, an inquest heard. Dr Nazim Mahmood, fell four storeys to his death from the balcony of his £700,000 flat in a mansion block in West Hampstead, London, in July. An inquest at St. Pancras Coroners’ Court heard Dr Mahmood had told his mother he was gay and was in a 13-year relationship with his fiancée, Matthew Ogston, just days before his death.

The court heard Dr. Mahmood had kept his sexuality secret from his Muslim family in Birmingham, fearing they would refuse to accept it on religious and cultural grounds. But having returned to the family home to celebrate Eid, the 34-year-old revealed his sexuality after his mother asked him if he was gay, the court heard.

Mahmood’s partner recalled how the doctor’s mother had insisted that Mahmood seek psychiatric help.

“Telling someone they needed to be cured would not be the easiest thing to take,”

Ogston said.

Mr. Ogston wept in court as he told of his love for Dr Mahmood, describing him as his “soulmate” and insisting his fiancé had given no indication of any intention to kill himself. “He always wanted to help other people, always put other people first and wanted to care for people,” Mr. Ogston told the coroner. “He was quite simply the most amazing man I’ll ever meet in my whole life.”

The coroner, Mary Hassell, commented:

It seems incredible that a young man with so much going for him could have taken his own life. But what I’ve heard is that he had one great sadness which was the difficulty his family had in accepting his sexuality.

(Image via Shutterstock)

Seven States’ Constitutions Say Atheists Can’t Hold Public Office, but Why Not Toss Out Those Unenforceable Laws?

There are seven states which have laws banning atheists from holding public office.

None of them are enforceable, thanks to the Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins, but that’s what their constitutions say.

Here’s a quick reminder:

Maryland: Article 37:

That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Arkansas: Article 19, Section 1:

No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Mississippi: Article 14, Section 265:

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina: Article 6, Section 8:

The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina: Article 17, Section 4:

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee: Article 9, Section 2:

No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas: Article 1, Section 4:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

…

In today’s New York Times, religion reporter Laurie Goodstein writes about how the Openly Secular campaign is calling for the repeal of these laws — even if they are irrelevant — for good reason:

Todd Stiefel, the chairman and primary funder of the Openly Secular coalition, said: “If it was on the books that Jews couldn’t hold public office, or that African-Americans or women couldn’t vote, that would be a no-brainer. You’d have politicians falling all over themselves to try to get it repealed. Even if it was still unenforceable, it would still be disgraceful and be removed. So why are we different?”

I’ve wondered the same thing myself.

The only argument in favor of keeping them in there is that they’re a very visible reminder of the kind of shit atheists have to deal with all the time. #NeverForget

It’s worth noting that even if the laws aren’t enforceable, that doesn’t always stop people from trying to enforce them…

The state bans have been invoked rarely since 1992, according to legal experts. In South Carolina that year, Herb Silverman, a math professor at the College of Charleston who is an atheist activist, was denied a position as a notary public. His case went to the South Carolina Supreme Court, and in 1997 he won. In North Carolina, after Cecil Bothwell, a writer, won a seat on the Asheville City Council in 2009, his opponents tried to invoke the State Constitution’s atheist ban to deny him his seat, but they soon backed down.

The most damning line in the whole piece came from a Republican official who challenged the atheists who wanted those constitutional provisions taken out:

Christopher B. Shank, the Republican minority whip in the Maryland Senate, said that while he believed in pluralism, “I think what they want is an affirmation that the people of the state of Maryland don’t care about the Christian faith, and that is a little offensive.”

What the hell…?

This is typical conservative Christian mentality for you: Ask the government to stop treating atheists like shit and it’s automatically anti-Christian.

If it’s not obvious, this has nothing to do with Christians. They can run for office. They do run for office. All we’re asking for is the opportunity to have that opportunity.

Constitutions never change easily, and even repealing these provisions would take a long time, but it’s a sign of how little atheists means to politicians that virtually none of them would ever even try.

(Image via American Spirit / Shutterstock.com)

All Religions Are Beautiful — None More Than the Faith in the Picture of the Horse

To people who worship the Picture of the Horse, it’s hurtful and incorrect to think that they worship the horse in the picture. It’s a matter of settled doctrine that they worship the picture, not the horse.

Glad we could clear that up.

(via Clickhole)

Samson Gets His Revenge

DarkMatters2525 continues telling the story of Samson by focusing on story of Judges 15:

You can see Part 1 here.

Atheist Group’s “Bill of Rights Nativity” Will Go Up in Florida Capitol Building

Joining The Satanic Temple in the Florida Capitol building this season will be the Freedom From Religion Foundation with this lovely sign featuring a “Bill of Rights Nativity” scene:

“We’d vastly prefer to keep religion — and irreligion — out of the seat of state government. The Capitol ought to be above the fray of religious divisiveness. But if public officials unwisely decide to permit religious public forums, then there must be ‘room at the inn’ for nonbelievers,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor explained.

Last year’s atheist invasion caused the Capitol to revisit their rules. Displays this year will be allowed up for one week only. Last year, all displays were permitted indefinitely. The banner will be displayed Dec. 8 through Dec. 15, FFRF’s second choice of dates.

You know, at the rate we’re going, we’re eventually going to see a holiday display without any Christian presence at all.

Maybe then, government officials will finally take the hint.

Prominent Skeptics Are Trying to Convince Journalists to Stop Misusing the Word

Sen. James Inhofe is frequently referred to as a “skeptic” of climate change. But he’d more accurately be described as a “denier” of it.

Now, a large group of prominent skeptics are trying to convince journalists to understand the distinction so they stop misusing the “S” word:

As Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we are concerned that the words “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated by the popular media. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.

The open letter, published on the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry’s website, is signed by Bill Nye, Ann Druyan, Sir Harold Kroto, Eugenie C. Scott, and dozens of others who have made careers out of promoting proper science.

There’s not much they can do about word usage other than raise awareness of it. And hope Margaret Sullivan of the Times comes across it.

(Image via Shutterstock)

Alabama Mayor, Forced to Rename “Keep Christ in Christmas” Parade, Wrongly Thinks FFRF’s Plan Backfired

A couple of weeks ago, we learned the city of Piedmont, Alabama was having a Christmas parade with the theme “Let’s Keep Christ in Christmas”:

Once the Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote a letter warning the city of the constitutional problems with that, the city changed the theme to the more innocuous “City of Piedmont Christmas Parade.”

The parade took place Thursday night and it seemed to go over well. But the narratives surrounding it are so far off…

Like this one, where the headline talks about the success of the parade “Despite Atheist Attacks.”

There were no “attacks.” There was only a respectful letter reminding city officials that they couldn’t do what they were doing. It was a courtesy, really.

Mayor Bill Baker told a local news outlet that FFRF’s plan was foiled:

“This anti-religious group that started all this stuff, I really believe this has backfired on them,” mayor Baker said.

“What has happened now is the city of Piedmont, great city to live in, great people, has rallied. They have caused our parade to be bigger and better with more emphasis placed on Christianity.“

This is a common misunderstanding of church/state separation groups by people who love playing the Christian Persecution card.

Nothing “backfired” on FFRF because that would imply they wanted the parade to be unsuccessful and devoid of religion. Neither of those is correct.

FFRF is probably thrilled so many people came out. More importantly, they have no problem with individual expressions of religious faith, which were in full force the other night. Their only issue was government endorsement of religion. That’s it. Once that went away, so did their concerns.

They can all pretend FFRF is secretly upset about all of this — but I promise you they’re not.

(Image via elina / Shutterstock.com)

Pastor Steven Anderson, Who Said Killing Gay People Would Solve the AIDS Crisis, Will Be Getting Coal for Christmas

A few days ago, Pastor Steven Anderson made some of his nastiest remarks to date, saying that

… If you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant.

The folks at Planting Peace — you know them because of their rainbow-painted house across the street from Westboro Baptist Church — are now using Anderson’s remarks as a fundraiser:

Planting Peace invites you to make a donation that will go toward helping people with HIV/AIDS. It’s clear to us that Pastor Anderson falls on the “naughty list” this year, so in addition, for every donation we receive Planting Peace will send a lump of coal to Pastor Anderson in a festive package tied with a bow that will be delivered on Christmas Eve.

The only problem with that: I’m sure he’s used to getting coal.

If they really wanted to make him mad, they would send him a card saying they love him.

Still, donate if you can. It won’t send a message to Anderson — because he already knows how people feel about him and he doesn’t care — but it’s a great cause benefitting a great organization.

(Thanks to Kristin for the link)