Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1930

On Behalf of 17 Re-Enlisting Air Force Officers, Military Religious Freedom Group Asks Defense Secretary to Fix Oath

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation‘s Mikey Weinstein just sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on behalf of 17 officers, urging him to put a stop to the Air Force’s bizarre enforcement of an oath that includes the unnecessary words “So Help Me God”:

I write you on behalf of our MRFF clients, 17 active duty USAF non-commissioned officers, who intend to reenlist in the USAF sometime in the next 9 months. These honorable NCOs have been specifically told by their commanders that they MUST end their respective enlistment oaths with the words “so help me God,” or face draconian and certain expulsion from the United States Air Force (USAF).

…

“Believe or be gone” was NOT the motto of our founders, and it’s not an idea that our predecessors fought and died for. With a single command directive, Mr. Secretary, you can immediately remediate this bigoted issue and prevent any valuable airmen from being wrongfully discharged from the military for failing a BLATANTLY unlawful religious test. We are calling on you to uphold your oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Secretary Hagel, will you please have the courage to do so?

It’s a powerful letter and it comes days after an Air Force official said the USAF was reaching out to the Defense Department’s top lawyer for advice on what to do.

I said this before, but there’s really no discussion to be had here. The final line of the oath needs to be optional. It’s a simple problem to fix and I can’t believe it’s taking this much effort to make it happen.

Missouri State Rep. Sues Obama Administration Because His Insurance Covers His Daughters’ Birth Control

This is a guest post written by Rachel Ford. She regularly blogs at Rachel’s Hobbit Hole.

…

A Missouri lawmaker and his wife are suing the Obama administration over the Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage requirements for contraception. State Representative Paul Wieland (care to guess his party affiliation?) and wife Theresa Wieland argue that no-cost access to birth control for their daughters (two of whom are adults, ages 18 and 19) violates their religious beliefs. As it further violates their beliefs to drop their children from their plan, they are seeking a judgment to intervene on their behalf.

State Rep. Paul Wieland

The Wielands are being represented by attorney Timothy Belz of the conservative Thomas More Society. The case had been dismissed by a district court on the grounds that the family lacked standing to bring the suit but has since been appealed. Belz sees the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling as a precedent in his clients’ favor:

“The employees are to Hobby Lobby what the daughters are to Paul and Teresa Wieland,” Timothy Belz… told a panel of three federal judges on the appeals court…

When one of the judges noted that parents in general have more control over children’s behavior than employers have over employees, so why don’t the Wielands just hold that over their daughters, Belz responded, “We all expect and want [our kids] to obey us, [but] they don’t always…”

As MSNBC’s Irin Carmon notes, “the Wielands are asking the federal government to enforce their parental guidelines on their daughters.” And while it’s unclear how the Wielands’ daughters feel about being the focal point of their parents’ religious and political efforts, what is obvious is that the implications of a favorable ruling for the Wielands could impact far more than their children’s healthcare choices.

As explained by senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, Gretchen Borchelt,

“… Wieland wants each individual to be able to pick and choose which specific medical services would be covered in a plan… It radically undermines the principle of insurance and undercuts the purpose of the health care law, which is to standardize benefits and ensure everyone has comprehensive coverage.“

Like the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Wielands’ concerns might appear “limited” on the surface, but they carry far-reaching and unwholesome implications. Just as we might expect when healthcare options become contingent on another person’s religious beliefs.

Arkansas Elementary School Held Assembly for Students Featuring Faculty Prayers and Questions About Church Attendance

Religious assemblies are bad enough when they take place at public high schools. But when an elementary school puts one on, I just get this icky, disgusted feeling. There’s a sense of “Let’s get ‘em while they’re young” that suggests kids who are old enough to think for themselves will never buy what you’re selling them.

That’s why it’s so frustrating to learn that officials at Central Elementary School in Arkansas’ Van Buren School District saw no problem hosting one of those assemblies.

A letter sent by the Freedom From Religion Foundation this week offered details of what happened:

It is our understanding that on September 3, during the school day at Central Elementary School, the school announced, over the intercom, that there was an assembly for students where there would be games and snacks. We understand students were told the assembly was for “everyone.” We were told this assembly was run by school staff, who asked the children to raise their hands in response to various religious questions, such as if they believed in God, if they went to church, and if they had never been to church. They then reportedly told the students to ask other students “if they had Jesus in their hearts,” and told the kids if they didn’t know about Jesus, the staff members could help them. We understand one person talked about how God changed her life. We also understand faculty led two prayers at this assembly. Finally, we are informed there is a sign reading “God Loves You” in the school’s front office.

Jesus… how little do you have to care about the Constitution to let this many violations pile up?

Superintendent Kerry Schneider offered an evasive answer to a local news station:

Schneider told 5NEWS he got the letter in an email at approximately 1:35 p.m. on Monday. He said that the issue was a personnel matter, and he couldn’t comment on it.

Schneider did confirm that the alleged incident is being investigated.

“We’re gonna have to look into it,” he said.

…

Schneider would not say if the events detailed in the letter actually took place.

Even if Schneider wants to avoid discussing this, you can bet the school officials knew what was going on. They staged the assembly and had faculty involvement. That doesn’t happen at an elementary school without knowledge of the principal and other administrators.

I’m glad one parent had the guts to blow the whistle on the school’s illegal actions.

(Image via Michael Chamberlin / Shutterstock.com)

Once Again, There’s Pressure to Cancel an Ayaan Hirsi Ali Event, but Yale’s Buckley Program Isn’t Budging

Earlier this year, Brandeis University announced that it would be awarding honorary degrees to five notable figures, including atheist Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her advocacy of women’s rights around the world:

Hirsi Ali, in her bestselling books Infidel and Nomad, made no secret of the fact that Islam, as interpreted by militants, extremists, and even (in some cases) casual believers, was not only untrue but harmful to the world. Between female genital mutilation, honor killings, the idea of martyrdom, and the murder of her friend Theo van Gogh, you could understand why she would courageously put her own life on the line to speak out against the horrors of the faith. In her mind, the problem wasn’t radical Islam. It was Islam, period. That’s why she was very blunt in a 2007 interview about her goal of trying to defeat Islam because she didn’t believe the “religion of peace” was capable of being saved in its current form.

Almost immediately after the announcement of her honorary degree, Muslim groups began to protest her selection.

A petition at Change.org started by a Muslim student asked:

How can an Administration of a University that prides itself on social justice and acceptance of all make a decision that targets and disrespects it’s own students? This is hurtful to the Muslim students and the Brandeis community who stand for social justice.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations echoed those sentiments and went even further by comparing Hirsi Ali to white supremacists and anti-Semites:

We believe offering such an award to a promoter of religious prejudice such as Ali is equivalent to promoting the work of white supremacists and anti-Semites. Granting her an honorary degree is unworthy of the American tradition of civil liberty and religious freedom represented by Justice Louis Brandeis and the great university that carries his name.

While Ali is free to spew anti-Muslim hate –- including her call for violence against the entire Muslim world — in any venue she chooses, she does not have a similar right to be honored for that hate by a prestigious university.

The Brandeis Muslim Student Association wrote in an op-ed in the student newspaper:

There is a fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech. Hirsi Ali has shamelessly passed this boundary as her remarks no longer regard her experiences, but rather condemn an entire religion and other minorities as a result of her prejudices and biases. Instead of encouraging respectful discussions and debates, she incites and supports insensitivity and irresponsibility by abusing freedom of speech as a way to justify her hate speech.

The Justice‘s editorial board took that side as well:

… her derogatory comments toward Islam warrant a closer look at the administration’s choice to award her a degree. In her 2010 memoir Nomad: From Islam to America, Hirsi Ali states that Islam is “not compatible with the modern Westernised way of living,” that “violence is an integral part [of Islam],” and that “Muhammad’s example is terrible, don’t follow it.” These comments ignore the fact that there are multiple views of Islam, insist that violence is inherent in Islam and that one culture is fundamentally better than another.

…

By presenting Hirsi Ali with an honorary degree, the University applauds all aspects of her work. An honorary degree validates the good she has done for women’s rights, yet it also condones the comments she has made against Islam, and therefore against a valued portion of our community.

Eventually, Brandeis caved in to the pressure. They announced that Hirsi Ali would not be receiving the honorary degree after all:

Following a discussion today between President Frederick Lawrence and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ms. Hirsi Ali’s name has been withdrawn as an honorary degree recipient at this year’s commencement. She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world. That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values. For all concerned, we regret that we were not aware of these statements earlier.

It was a disappointing withdrawal. Brandeis officials should have stuck by their original decision. Hirsi Ali has done incredible work to expose and end religious-based violence against women through her books and foundation.

…

Hirsi Ali was recently invited to give a lecture for Yale’s William F. Buckley, Jr. Program. Her speech is titled “Clash of Civilizations: Islam and the West” and it’s scheduled for this Monday night. But now we’re seeing all the same backlash we saw at Brandeis.

More than 35 groups — including, to my disappointment, the Yale Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics — have signed on to an open letter expressing their disappointment in the invitation. It goes beyond just a harmless scolding, though. The Buckley Foundation said a representative from the Muslim Students Association specifically called for them to rescind her invitation. Here are some excerpts from the letter:

We sympathize with the unfortunate circumstances that Ms. Hirsi Ali faced in her Muslim household as a child and we recognize that such experiences do exist in many countries, including Muslim-majority ones. We condemn such actions and contend that Islam does not promote them. It is important to distinguish Islamic teachings from the practices of some Muslims, which can be based on a variety of sociopolitical reasons and which do exist in other non-Muslim communities around the world.

“Unfortunate circumstances” has to be the most unbelievable euphemism I’ve ever heard for religion-based genital mutilation…

Our concern is that Ms. Hirsi Ali is being invited to speak as an authority on Islam despite the fact that she does not hold the credentials to do so. In the past, under such authority, she has overlooked the complexity of sociopolitical issues in Muslim-majority countries and has purported that Islam promotes a number of violent and inhumane practices. At her worst, Ms. Hirsi Ali has said that Islam is a “destructive nihilistic cult of death” worshiping a “fire-breathing Allah” that, in all of its forms, needs to be “defeated.”

She doesn’t have credentials?! She lived through it. Yale: Where the lack of a doctorate means you have nothing worthwhile to say…

The comments Ms. Hirsi Ali has made on Islam have been classified as hate speech and have been considered unprotected libel and slander. She has been condemned for them by national organizations and universities. The Muslim community and its allies are disappointed that our own fellow Yalies would invite such a speaker knowingly and that she would have such a platform in our home.

That condemnation usually comes from people who think Islam is all about rainbows and lollipops. If these students think she’s wrong, then they’re welcome to challenge her. But not to silence her.

To their credit, the Buckley Foundation isn’t taking the bait:

“An invitation and decision to go forward with this event is not an endorsement of her views or her past statements,” said [Buckley Program president Rich] Lizardo. “It is an endorsement of her right to share those views and an endorsement of free speech.”

Here’s the beauty of a college campus. The 35 student groups, including the Muslim Students Association, is welcome to bring in a speaker of their own to refute Hirsi Ali’s points. They can probably even get campus funding for it. That’s what an open exchange of ideas is all about.

The National Review Online has an excellent editorial defending Hirsi Ali’s invitation:

… the students backing this censorship — Ivy Leaguers, the best and the brightest, the cream of America’s intellectual crop — seem to have no notion whatsoever that much of the purpose of education is precisely to discomfit and discompose. The great teachers were great questioners (see: Socratic Method) who understood that exposing shoddy habits of mind and training critical faculties are impossible if all one ever hears is confirmation of prior beliefs. Even the most enthusiastic Ivy League shill should know that spending $55K a year to have one’s presuppositions obsequiously endorsed is a waste. But in our age of studious political correctness, where the inmates write the asylum’s curriculum, these students are happy to insulate themselves against any opinions from beyond the Old Campus Quad.

The Buckley Program has stated that Hirsi Ali will speak as planned, and they do not intend to invite a pre-approved counterpoint. That is as it should be. To yield to the petitions of these aggrieved student groups would only facilitate the evaporation of intellectual diversity at one of America’s premier institutions of learning.

Hear, hear. Let Hirsi Ali speak, and students are welcome to respond and challenge her views. This notion that she’s unfairly critical of Islam is one that anyone is welcome to refute. She’s hardly someone who’s critical just for the sake of getting a rise out of people — she has plenty of reason to find fault with the faith.

I hope that these students who would rather she not be invited at all actually attend Monday night’s event. Don’t just protest outside and leave. Listen to her story and respond if necessary. That people are so sensitive to criticisms of Islam is reason alone for why her invitation is a welcome one.

(via Secular Right. Portions of this article were posted earlier.)

Atheist Politicians in Arizona Speak Out Against Governor Jan Brewer’s “Office of Faith and Community Partnerships”

Two weeks ago, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed an Executive Order to create the “Governor’s Office of Faith and Community Partnerships.” She did something similar in 2010, but this newer order includes some changes:

The role is described similarly, including the appointment of people from faith-based groups, but her new order allows the office to accept and spend money, including the ability to get local, state, or federal government funding.

For that reason, groups like the Secular Coalition for Arizona, atheist State Representative Juan Mendez, atheist Congressional candidate James Woods, and a host of other allies gathered outside the state capitol this morning to speak out against this breakdown of church/state separation and deliver a letter to the Governor:

American Atheists’ Dave Silverman speaks as Mendez, Woods, and the Secular Coalition’s Serah Blain watch (via @unbradio)

“Arizona is full of atheists, and Governor Brewer needs to understand this,” American Atheists president David Silverman said at a press conference outside the state capitol this morning. “Governor Brewer needs to know when she puts together this office… that the faith portion of that excludes approximately a third of her state’s voters.”

…

The letter delivered to Brewer’s office this morning asks for accountability of any taxpayer funds used by this office, to make sure that programs receiving any taxpayer funds are “free of religious content,” and that any programs receiving taxpayer funds are completely inclusive.

…

“To this day, I still get e-mails from constituents… who never thought it would be possible for people of secular community and atheism to be part of the government,” Mendez says today. “I think the governor’s actions [are] a missed opportunity and a kind of systemic exclusion around the idea of service and civic [engagement]. There are a lot of people who don’t engage in faith who want to be welcomed into not just helping solve social problems, but the invitation from government to speak and share their experiences.”

No word yet on whether Brewer received the letter or plans to respond to it.

Viral Picture of Two Arkansas State Football Players Accidentally Reveals Church/State Violation

Over the weekend, Arkansas State’s football players Jemar Clark and Darion Griswold happened to sit on the bench next to each other when the television cameras caught them at just the right moment. Even @SportsCenter remarked on the inadvertent humor of two jerseys reading “Clark Griswold“:

Hilarious. Lots of retweets. Everyone had a good laugh.

Just one problem: Why were there Christian crosses on their helmets?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, acting on a tip, wanted to know, so they sent a letter to the school’s athletic department about it.

This afternoon, Arkansas State issued a press release saying those crosses would soon disappear:

Arkansas State Director of Athletics Terry Mohajir has issued the following statement regarding the football team’s helmet decals honoring former player Markel Owens and manager Barry Weyer, who both tragically passed away earlier this year.

“I am 100 percent in support of our coaches’ and players’ expression of faith, as well as their choice to honor the two individuals associated with our team who passed away by voluntarily wearing a cross decal on the back of their helmets. Unfortunately, we have received a complaint that use of the cross violates the Constitutional prohibition against separation of church and state.

“After consulting with University counsel, we have been advised to either modify the decal or remove it completely. Thus, in order to ensure that we are in full compliance with Constitutional law, we will be modifying the decal to still honor the two individuals who are no longer with us.”

No one’s complaining about honoring the memories of two people important to the school’s football program, but those crosses aren’t the way to do it. Religious symbols don’t belong on team equipment. The school officials are doing the right thing by swapping out the crosses for something constitutional. But they should have known better to begin with.

Should a 14-Year-Old Pennsylvania Boy Be Punished for Supposed Desecration of a Statue of Jesus?

About a year ago, the Christian service organization Love in the Name of Christ put a statue of a kneeling Jesus on their property in Bedford County, Pennsylvania.

(Image via Facebook)

For whatever reason, this past July, a 14-year-old boy in the area thought it would be great idea to take pictures of Kneeling Jesus giving him a mock-blowjob. Then he put those pictures up on Facebook. Because he’s 14 and he thought everyone would find this hilarious.

Well, the police weren’t laughing. Turns out public posts are public. Who knew?

Let me get this out of the way right now: This kid is an idiot. I don’t condone what he did. I don’t support it. It’s not just childish, it’s a violation of someone else’s private property. Defile your own Jesus statue however you want, but why do it to someone else’s?

Okay. That being said, let’s talk about what he was actually charged with:

The teenager’s juvenile court charge, formally titled “desecration, theft or sale of a venerated object,” is a second-degree misdemeanor in the Pennsylvania Code. The law defines desecration as “defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities” of people who learn of the action.

This is where things get weird. He was charged with desecrating a venerated object. But he didn’t damage it. He didn’t alter the statue in any way. He didn’t *try* to offend anyone’s sensibilities — it sounds like he just thought his Facebook friends would find it funny. So even if the law prohibits desecration, I don’t think he actually did anything illegal. Distasteful? Sure. But bad taste isn’t a crime.

The Altoona Mirror, which annoyingly put the story behind a paywall, says that this law was used against a college student in 2010. That student peed on a Nativity scene. That, to me, is actually physically mistreating a venerated object.

But posing for a picture which puts a statue in a suggestive position? I’m just saying it happens all the time. It may not be as funny as the posers think, but it’s hardly a criminal offense.

The overreaction seems to stem from the fact that this was a statue of Jesus rather than some random public figure.

The blogger at Foster Disbelief writes:

… this is a kid. Who took a photo. That’s it. The only damage he caused is in the minds of people who viewed the photo and lost their shit… If he would have vandalized, or damaged in anyway, the statue, then I would back up the charges… But he didn’t. He took a picture.

That is not a crime.

I have to agree. At worst, he was trespassing on private property. But that’s not what he’s getting punished for. He’s being punished for a joke. A joke that’s not particularly funny, original, or interesting to me, but a joke nonetheless.

Let his parents punish him. Let him deal with classmates calling him immature. I just don’t understand why local cops are getting involved, and I would love to see a group like the ACLU come to his defense.

Bryan Fischer: Atheists Should Be Banned from the Military

The Air Force may soon be forced to fix a problem of their own making by allowing an atheist to reenlist even though he doesn’t want to sign an oath that includes the phrase “So Held Me God.”

But Christian Right leader Bryan Fischer has a better solution: Just ban atheists from the military altogether:

There is no place in the United States military for those who do not believe in the Creator who is the source of every single one of our fundamental human and civil rights.

Serving in the military is a privilege, not a constitutional right. And it should be reserved for those who have America’s values engraved on their hearts.

…

A man who doesn’t believe in the Creator the Founders trusted certainly can live in America without being troubled for being a fool. But he most certainly should not wear the uniform.

As we all know, “America’s values” just happen to be whatever Fischer believes… and if we’re talking about the Creator the Founders believed in, it sure as hell wouldn’t resemble the God of the American Family Association.

The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers makes clear that, if all non-Christians were purged, we’re talking about more than a quarter of military personnel.

I suspect that number’s a lot higher than Fischer thinks it is.

Right Wing Watch also points out that Fischer made it clear five years ago that he didn’t want Muslims serving in the military either:

… it is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military. The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security.

There’s a poll at One News Now asking whether there are atheists in foxholes. Not that I want to give them more clicks, but have fun voting “disagree.”

(Image via Shutterstock. Thanks to Daryl for the link)

Rick Santorum: Let’s “Call Secularism a Religion” so It’ll Get Banned from Public Schools

In order to promote his upcoming movie One Generation Away (about how Christianity is that close to extinction because religious rights are supposedly eroding away), Rick Santorum appeared on Bryan Fischer‘s radio show yesterday. Because nobody else cares…

It won’t shock you to hear that the men believer secular public schools are (somehow) pushing an atheist worldview onto students. In their minds, neutrality is inherently anti-Christian. But their fix might surprise you: Just call secularism a religion and the problem is solved since religion has no place in a public school!

The idea that, if you take religion out of the public square, if you take the Bible out of the classroom, that that’s neutral, well, no it’s not neutral! It’s a different worldview! I think we should start calling secularism a religion, because if we did, then we could ban that, too…

They’ve hidden behind the fact that the absence of religion is not a religion of itself, which, in fact, it is because it has certain moral values and certain teachings that look like a religious, a type of moral worldview. So what we have to start doing, as Christians, is reassert ourselves and say, you know what? The freedom of religion is not the freedom from religion. We should be in the public square. We should be taught in the schools. This should be an open marketplace of ideas instead of throttling one particular perspective under the name of it being offensive to some people.

Did you catch Fischer just smiling and nodding the entire time, as if this was the most intelligent thing he’s ever heard?

Of course, in Santorum’s world, only Christianity would be taught in the schools because it’s not like he’d get behind the teaching of Islam. So much for an open marketplace of ideas…

I know I say this all the time, but no public school is teaching (nor should they) that students should stop believing in God. Removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance keeps things neutral, while reciting the phrase “One nation, under no God” would be advocating atheism. There’s a difference. Bald isn’t a hair color, off isn’t a TV channel, and neutrality isn’t the promotion of atheism.

(via Right Wing Watch)

Incompetent Air Force Officials Are Asking the Defense Department Whether “So Help Me God” in Oath is Optional

Last week, we learned that an anonymous service member at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada was denied reenlistment because he refused to sign an oath that included the phrase “So help me God.”

The American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center sent a warning letter to Air Force officials suggesting this was absolutely unacceptable.

Yesterday, an Air Force official told Stars and Stripes that it had asked the Defense Department’s top lawyer for advice on what to do:

“The opinion that we’re seeking will help inform future decisions and the latitude that can be taken with the oath,” Air Force spokeswoman Rose Richeson said Tusday. “But the Air Force has to comply with law.”

This is unbelievable.

It’s like a teacher asking the principal for advice on whether a student should be punished even though he didn’t do anything wrong — you can do it, but a small dose of common sense would have worked just fine. Or how about just asking a random stranger next to you? That’ll do it, too.

It’s not like you need a brilliant legal mind to figure this one out. It’s that easy of a question. And the Air Force is the only branch of the military where this is even an issue:

… a defense official who discussed the matter on the condition of anonymity said the airman’s right to modify the oath to fit his lack of religious belief is not in question outside the Air Force.

“I’ll tell you that there is no legal requirement to say ‘So help me God’ in any federal oath/affirmation by a person taking the oath,” the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter, said in an email. “That is, saying ‘So help me God’ in any federal oath is optional at the discretion of the person taking the oath (not the person administering the oath).”

We know how this will play out. The Defense Department will say, “Why the hell are you bothering us? Of course he can reenlist!” And the Air Force will act like they were just making sure everything was done properly — without apologizing or admitting they screwed this one up.

It would be a lot easier if they just skipped all the theater and let the service member get back to work.

(Thanks to Brian for the link)