Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1933

An Open Records Request Revealed What Oklahoma Officials *Really* Think About the Satanic Temple’s Proposed Monument

Last December, the New York-based Satanic Temple made nationwide headlines when they said they wanted to donate a monument to be placed outside the Oklahoma State Capitol building, where a Ten Commandments monument already stood:

The Ten Commandments monument outside the Oklahoma State Capitol building (AP)

That was later followed by a request from a Hindu group that wanted to erect a monument of Lord Hanuman.

I’m sure more monument requests would have been made, but the Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission voted unanimously in December to declare a moratorium on other monuments. (Part of the reason for the halt was that they were still dealing with a lawsuit from the first one.)

This wasn’t just all talk on the part of the Satanic Temple. They even released the design of their proposed monument, featuring Baphomet:

They started building the display, too.

…

Here’s where things get even more interesting.

On July 30, the Satanic Temple (via the website MuckRock) filed an Open Records request with the Capitol Preservation Commission. They wanted:

Any and all documents related to The Satanic Temple, their “Request for Approval of Architectural Modifications,” all documents referring to the historical and/or literary Satan and any other documents mentioning The Satanic Temple, including internal and external communications… dating back to November 1, 2013.

The Commission was obligated to respond — and they eventually did.

Most of the documents are things like petitions to stop the Satanic monument (who cares — this isn’t a popularity contest), constituent emails (full of references to Jesus and words in ALL CAPS), internal emails concerning reporters asking questions about the monument, etc. Nothing too newsworthy.

But one piece of correspondence stands out. It’s between staffer Beverly Hicks and Capitol Preservation Commission Chair Trait Thompson (the guy in charge). It comes in response to one citizen’s threat to vandalize the Satanic monument if it ever goes up. You’ll want to read it from the bottom up:

In case you missed it, that’s Thompson joking (?) about how he wants to approve the Satanic Monument just so Patrick can destroy it… followed by Hicks responding with a couple more smiley face emoticons.

Hilarious…

There’s also another, more serious, problem. I asked Satanic Temple spokesperson Lucien Greaves what he made of the emails and files and he said he didn’t get everything he asked for:

While the documents we received are interesting, the paucity of inter-agency communication regarding our monument request raises suspicions that the agency failed to send us their full cache. What we find are mainly documents and communications related to media requests and citizen letters related to our proposed monument. It strikes us as extremely implausible that the Commission has absolutely no meeting notes or minutes related to our monument request, even as we see — from the documents we did receive — that the issue of our monument has been a primary issue for the agency for some time.

Reasonable suspicion aside, we do have one provable omission from the Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission documents: a letter we sent back in June requesting that they advise us on next steps, and apprise us of the status of our monument donation request, as the statue itself nears completion. The letter was sent via registered mail, for which we received proof of receipt… The Preservation Commission failed to reply to this letter which, again, they did not include in their assembled records to us. I personally feel it quite possible that the commission’s correspondence related to that letter (which rightfully should have been included in reply to our Freedom of Information request) would indicate a conscious and willful decision to ignore us (amounting to a de facto rejection of our monument request on viewpoint discrimination grounds).

He’s not kidding about their letter not being included in the document trove. Here’s the letter and the proof of receipt is below:

Greaves continued in his email:

Some may feel it would be unlikely — implausible as the apparent lack of internal communication regarding The Satanic Temple may appear — that Oklahoma officials would so flagrantly ignore the legal standards to which they are bound. I would remind them that this whole issue arose in response to Oklahoma representatives violating not only the Establishment Clause of the Federal Constitution, but directly violating their own state constitution as well, when they allowed a religious monument to be placed on State Capitol grounds.

Whether the 10 Commandments reflect one’s personal religious beliefs or not, every American should be offended when public officials overstep the boundaries of their authority. We should never allow the law to become malleable to the convenience of our elected representatives, regardless of whether the simple tribalisms they favor align with our own. The precedent in allowing such transgressions to go unpunished has disturbing ramifications for us all.

We will appeal the Oklahoma Capitol Commission’s reply to our request and, I suspect, if we end up embroiled in a lawsuit regarding our monument, the power of the subpoena may give us better access to that which has been withheld.

As it stands, the monument moratorium is still in effect and there’s no indication that the Satanic monument has been accepted or rejected. While the public may be overwhelmingly against it, their opinions are irrelevant. Legally speaking, the Commission can’t say yes to the Christian display and no to everyone else. If they’re covering up their discussions about the Satanic Temple, then they’re just adding another major problem to their growing list.

(Portions of this article were posted earlier)

Kennewick (WA) City Council Member: Let’s Begin Meetings with a Prayer to the Christian God

John Trumbo (below), a city council member in Kennewick, Washington, thinks meetings would be a lot better if everyone just prayed to Jesus at the beginning:

Trumbo’s proposal calls for the council to open meetings with a prayer that is no longer than 90 seconds. The prayers would be led by a volunteer and call for those attending the meeting to be respectful during the prayer and that the prayer “be directed in name and reference to the same God addressed in the Founding Fathers’ signatory documents that established this nation.”

When asked to define that God more specifically, Trumbo said it is “the God of Abraham, the same God who Jesus Christ refers to as his father and is one with him.”

…

Someone only has to read the words of numerous American statesmen or look around the nation’s capital, with its depictions of Christian religious scenes and biblical inscriptions, to understand why only a Christian God should be acknowledged in a prayer at a government function, Trumbo said.

“It’s all over the place and none of it’s Allah and none of it’s Buddha,” he said.

Of course, that’s absolutely illegal, even in the wake of Greece v. Galloway. Invocations must be open to people of all faiths and no faith at all. Hell, even a Religious Right legal defense group thinks his proposal is idiotic:

“I suspect there’d be some legal difficulties in dictating who someone prays to,” said Brett Harvey, senior counsel for Alliance for Defending Freedom, a nonprofit that advocates for religion in government.

When ADF says you’re crossing the line, you *know* the proposal has gone too far.

By the way, the article notes that Trumbo wanted to pray to the “Christian God, the God of the nation’s Founding Fathers.” The Founding Fathers may have made formal references to God in historical documents, but they were adamant about not establishing a Christian nation. Furthermore, many of them were Deists. As one commenter notes, that line is either ignorant of history or just sloppy writing.

Trumbo made the proposal last Tuesday but it was “tabled indefinitely” two days later because, apparently, the council had more pressing issues to deal with.

That’s not an outright rejection, though. You’re free to email the council members and remind them of why the separation of church and state is so important. Or, if you live in Kennewick, let them know that if this proposal is ever passed, you want to be on the list to deliver a non-religious invocation.

(Thanks to Brian for the link)

I Thought About It. It Still Doesn’t Make Sense

Answers in Genesis published this cartoon a couple of days ago and Ken Ham sent it out in his latest newsletter:

It took me a while, but I think I figured it out.

The joke must be that evolution makes perfect sense and it’s funny how a group like AiG would mock that.

No, that’s not it…

Okay.

Maybe the joke is that if your kids go to public school, they’ll learn science! And that’s funny because AiG seems worried about that.

No?

Maybe the joke is that a school bus has a decal on it?

No, that’s not it either… Okay, help me out here. What’s the joke?

Prayer Isn’t Just a Form of Meditation

Singer-songwriter Andrew W.K. writes an advice column for the Village Voice each week. In his latest column, a reader explained that his brother had come down with cancer and his grandmother suggested the family pray for him:

Just thinking about it now makes my fists clench with frustration. We need to actively help my brother and do actual things to save him, not kneeling on the ground and mumbling superstitious nonsense. I got into a fight with my grandmother and the rest of my family about this and now I feel worse than ever. I need to get them to see that praying and religious mumbo jumbo doesn’t help.

I obviously understand where the reader is coming from, though I don’t think you’re going to change a family member’s mind on prayer especially when a loved one has cancer… But W.K. did a nice job answering the question. At least if you completely redefine prayer:

Prayer is a type of thought. It’s a lot like meditation — a type of very concentrated mental focus with passionate emotion directed towards a concept or situation, or the lack thereof. But there’s a special X-factor ingredient that makes “prayer” different than meditation or other types of thought. That X-factor is humility. This is the most seemingly contradictory aspect of prayer and what many people dislike about the feeling of praying. “Getting down on your knees” is not about lowering your power or being a weakling, it’s about showing respect for the size and grandeur of what we call existence — it’s about being humble in the presence of the vastness of life, space, and sensation, and acknowledging our extremely limited understanding of what it all really means.

He also offered this advice to the reader:

Think about him more than you’ve ever thought about anyone before. Think about him more deeply and with more detail than you’ve ever thought about anything. Think about how incredible it is that you have a brother — that he exists at all. Focus on him until you feel like your soul is going to burst. Tell him in your heart and soul that you love him. Feel that love pouring out of you from all sides. Then get up and go be with him and your family. And you can tell your grandmother that you prayed for your brother.

That’s… nice. But it doesn’t answer the reader’s question. Certainly, telling someone you love them is a wonderful thing. But W.K.’s version of humbling oneself to the vastness of the universe is a very new-age-y way to change, well, nothing. The mental focus may help you deal with a difficult situation, but it won’t get rid of anyone’s cancer.

Meanwhile, I’m assuming the grandmother doesn’t see her prayers as simply some showcase of her humility. She probably wants everyone to make a direct plea to God to change the brother’s circumstances.

I would personally advise the reader to let the grandmother cope as she sees fit, and he should do the same. As much as he’d love to tell his family that prayer won’t help, it’s neither the time nor place. It’s not like everyone’s going to unclasp their hands and say, “Oh! You’re right!”

Focus on the brother. Offer him whatever tangible help you can provide. And don’t let the grandmother’s wishes distract you from making the most of whatever time you may have left with him.

(via Morgan Guyton. Image via Shutterstock)

A Debate on School Prayer Between an Expert and an Idiot

The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal in Texas published a debate on the topic of school prayer in today’s paper. On one side, they have Arnold Loewy, the Chair of Criminal Law at Texas Tech School of Law.

On the other side, they have Donald May who wouldn’t know the law if it were spelled out right in front of him. Which it is.

Arnold Loewy (left) and Donald May

Let’s start with the sensible Loewy:

How, you might ask, can removing prayer from school possibly be good news for religious people? Well, in the first place, the Court did not remove prayer, it only removed school-sponsored prayer. There is a huge difference. Students are free to pray in school anytime they wish so long as they don’t disturb the class in doing so. So, if a group of two, 10 or 100 want to meet at school during lunch, recess, before or after school, or at any other free time and offer a prayer, they are free to do so.

…

We are so much better off today when students for whom a particular religious exercise is meaningful can participate in it on their own at school, unencumbered by the presence of others who neither revere nor understand their sacred blessings. Much of the objection to the school prayer decisions come from those who do not understand them.

Well said. Perfectly reasonable. Thank you, professor.

Now, let’s hear the rebuttal of Donald May, a failed congressional candidate who, proving Loewy’s point, doesn’t understand the law whatsoever.

Murray v. Curlett and Abington v. Schempp, two cases decided together in 1963, prohibited prayer and Bible reading in public schools. In doing so, the Court recognized atheism as a religion, gave it preference over Christianity, and established secular atheism as our national religion. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The educational achievements, discipline and manners of our youth have since been in a steep decline.

Not only does May wrongly think atheism is the law of the land, Loewy just explained why prayer and Bible reading is perfectly fine in public schools as long as it’s not school-sponsored. It’s clear May doesn’t know how to think; who knew he also didn’t know how to read?

Loewy tried one more time to explain this in simple terms:

The school prayer cases established neutrality, not atheism…

…

Whether this was a good idea or a bad idea, it most assuredly was not an establishment of atheism. Indeed, if 100 years from now, we should become a majority atheist nation (and I certainly am not suggesting that would be a good thing), those of us who believe in God can rely on the school prayer decisions to preclude such atheistic tyranny.

Well, I think it’d be a pretty good thing to have a majority atheist nation, but point taken: The same law that prevents an establishment of Christianity as a national religion would also prevent an establishment of atheism.

What does May have to say about that?

Nothing. He’s still prattling on about how atheism is our national religion. Really.

Students are taught by the court-mandated presence of secularism and the absence of the Judeo-Christian religion in our schools that God’s laws and moral behavior are not important.

Our federal government has illegally imposed secular atheism as our national religion, redefined the free exercise of religion as “coercion” and prevented the voluntary exercise of religion in schools.

It’s telling that the guy whose ignorance is in full display is the one who ran for Congress.

I only wish I could see the facial reactions of Loewy as he read May’s “rebuttals,” knowing that the incoming students at his law school could very easily run circles around the dimwitted adult who thinks he can fix Washington.

(Thanks to Brian for the link)

Tennessee Supreme Court Hears Case of Mother Who Tried (and Failed) to Heal Her Daughter’s Cancer with Prayer

In early 2002, a doctor told 15-year-old Jessica Crank she needed to go to an emergency room because of what was later diagnosed as Ewing’s Sarcoma, a cancerous bone tumor. Instead of doing that, her mother Jacqueline Crank turned to Jesus instead.

Jessica died later that year.

Tennessee law has a section with definitions for aggravated child abuse and neglect. It includes this exemption:

Nothing in this part shall be construed to mean a child is abused, neglected, or endangered, or abused, neglected or endangered in an aggravated manner, for the sole reason the child is being provided treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone, in accordance with the tenets or practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner of the recognized church or religious denomination, in lieu of medical or surgical treatment.

Because a trial court judge said Jacqueline Crank didn’t qualify for this exemption (because a duly accredited practitioner didn’t provide the spiritual treatment), she was given a sentence of nearly one year of unsupervised probation. Considering that her daughter arguably died of a treatable medical condition because of her mother’s neglect, that’s not even a slap on the wrist. It’s blowing on the wrist from a distance.

But Crank wasn’t happy with that. She said she did get help from an accredited practitioner — Ariel Ben Sherman — who got his credentials from the Universal Life Church, the same website that, for a few bucks, lets you become an ordained minister so you can officiate a wedding.

Crank has been appealing her sentence for years now and, this week, oral arguments took place in front of Tennessee’s Supreme Court:

In briefs, Crank argues that Tennessee’s Spiritual Treatment Exemption Act is unconstitutional because it treats some faith healing as legitimate while allowing other faith healing to be criminalized.

The state Court of Criminal Appeals ruled against Crank in 2013, saying that even if the state’s faith healing law were unconstitutional, striking it down would not undo Crank’s conviction. It would simply erase the exceptions for faith healing, leaving the law intact that makes it illegal not to seek medical treatment for a child.

Crank argues in a brief to the state Supreme Court that simply deleting the faith healing exemption would have the effect of punishing her for an act of which she is innocent.

Even if the law is found to be unconstitutional, it wouldn’t overturn Crank’s conviction, a fact that led the justices to ask her lawyer why she was even pursuing a legal challenge:

“How does (striking down the exemption) help your client?” Justice Cornelia Clark asked.

Justice Holly Kirby repeated the question when [attorney Gregory P.] Isaacs appeared to sidestep it.

“If we strike this provision down, doesn’t your client still stand convicted?” Kirby asked. “What are you asking us to do?”

If the high court strikes down the exemption, faith healing would be denied to all parents in future cases, not those already decided.

Chief Justice Sharon Lee and Justice Gary Wade wondered whether Crank was even entitled to claim the exemption since she twice took Jessica to a local clinic in Loudon County after the teenager developed a large tumor on her shoulder. It was only after those clinic visits Crank refused to seek follow-up diagnosis and care.

Let’s state the obvious: There should be no exemption for parents who allow their children to die because they put their trust in God instead of medicine. I’m upset that she received such a lenient sentence to begin with, and I’ll be furious if even that sentence is found to be too light. The only reason she was let off so easy was because doctors admitted that Jessica would likely have died from her tumor even if she had gone to a hospital immediately. (Though her quality of life would arguably have been much better in the time she had left.)

We’ve seen this happen way too many times. Parents are welcome to pray all they want. But putting their kids’ lives in jeopardy by not taking them to the hospital is not an acceptable option. I hope the TN Supreme Court just gets rid of the “faith-healing” exemption altogether.

Activist M. Dolon Hickmon does a really nice job of putting this case in broader context at Camels with Hammers.

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

Militant Atheist: A Misnomer If Ever There Was One

We know the phrase “militant atheist” is almost always an oxymoron. The people bestowed with that title tend to be authors, debaters, and thinkers rather than dictators or murderers.

Nick Cohen, writing for The Observer, takes a much-appreciated swipe against the “intellectuals” who seriously uses that phrase, calling it a “phantom menace”:

A militant atheist

To a large element in modern conservatism, equal treatment for all is nothing less than the “aggressive intolerance” of Christianity, as is the legal requirement that hotel owners cannot ban gay couples from their rooms just as landlords once banned blacks, dogs and Irish from theirs. Do not underestimate the danger of their wails. One day, they could encourage a future Conservative government to repeal the Human Rights Act.

…

… As atheists have nothing in common beyond an inability to believe in a god or an assortment of gods, the argument comes down to a critique of the minority of atheists who decided that, what with 9/11, Hindu nationalism and genuinely militant strains of Christianity and Judaism, the times required us to dispense with politeness.

If there really were militant atheists, to hell with them. But the people who use that phrase always seem to use it against someone like Richard Dawkins, whose Twitter feed may be the most controversial thing about him.

Cohen ends his rant with a very pointed critique of atheism-bashers:

Since 9/11, western intellectuals have had a choice. They could have taken on militant religion, exposed its texts, decried its doctrines and found arguments to persuade young British men not to go to Syria and slaughter “heretics”. But religious fanatics might have retaliated. Instead, they chose the safe option of attacking the phantom menace of militant atheists, who would never harm them. Leaving all philosophical and moral objections aside, they have been the most awful cowards.

Cohen doesn’t name these cowards outright as I wish he did, though the article links to a few of the people he’s talking about.

We’d be much better off if the people who constantly seem to criticize popular atheists spent at least that much effort condemning problematic religious beliefs.

(Image via Shutterstock)

An Article on Charisma News’ Website Calls for Conversion, Deportation, Sterilization, and Death of Muslims

When charges of “Islamophobia” are leveled against atheists, it almost always involves their criticism of Islam, not Muslims. For that reason, I find that charge unfair and a way to deflect from discussing any justified problems with the faith itself. More importantly, when atheists do condemn the actions of some Muslims, they’re very clear about the fact that they’re only speaking about the extremists.

But if you want to see what Islamophobia really looks like, check out Rev. Gary Cass‘ disturbing piece at Charisma News titled “Why I Am Absolutely Islamaphobic” (sic). Cass, the president and CEO of DefendChristians.org, is a guy who’s going after Muslims and not Islam. And there’s little (if any) nuance between the handful of extremists and everybody else.

Cass acts like every Muslim is a member of ISIS — or will eventually be — and he proposes three ways of dealing with them:

1) Conversion to Christianity. (Good luck with that.)

2) Deportation, which he offers as an alternative to sterilization.

3) Violence.

No, seriously. He wants to kill them.

The only thing that is biblical and that 1,400 years of history has shown to work is overwhelming Christian just war and overwhelming self defense…

… we must be prepared for the increase of terror at home and abroad. This is not irrational, but the loving thing we must do for our children and neighbors. First trust in God, then obtain a gun(s), learn to shoot, teach your kids the Christian doctrines of just war and self defense, create small cells of family and friends that you can rely on if some thing catastrophic happens and civil society suddenly melts down.

You’ve got to be shitting me.

Only after he writes that does he narrow his rhetoric down to the extremists:

The true face of Islam is on full display even as Muhammad is burning in hell. We will have to face the harsh truth that radical Islam has no place in civilized society. Militant Muslims cannot live in a society based on Christian ideals of equality and liberty. They will always seek to harm us.

Did I mention he’s a Reverend? And a leader of a Christian group that works to defend against “anti-Christian defamation“? And that he justifies his points in this article by pointing to the Bible? And that he’s writing for a Christian publication that decided this was worthy of its audience’s eyes?

Jesus. H. Christ. (I know Duck Dynasty‘s Phil Robertson‘s made similar remarks on Sean Hannity‘s show last week, but even he was specifically talking about ISIS.)

Fred Clark can’t believe it:

Charisma needs to take this column down, apologize and repent. And everyone there who touched this — solicited it, approved it, failed to resign in protest over the idea of it — needs to be fired. Twice.

Gary Cass has done us all a favor. The true face of Charisma magazine is on full display. We will have to face the harsh truth that radical right-wing Christianism has no place in civilized society. Militant Christianists cannot live in a society based on ideals of equality and liberty. They will always seek to harm others.

I would have to disagree with Fred about one thing: I don’t want them to take this article down. I want them to leave it up as a perpetual reminder of how crazy these Religious Right types can be. (Just in case they do take it down, which I doubt they will, I’ve saved the page right here.)

I used to think the worst articles posted on Charisma‘s website pushed anti-gay bigotry. Turns out that was just the tip of the iceberg.

So You’ve Left Islam… What Next?

Imtiaz Shams used to be a Muslim. He’s not anymore, and now he wants to help others who have left Islam but don’t quite know where to go from there.

In the third video of his trilogy, he focuses on what to do after you’ve moved on from Islam:

You can see the previous videos in the series here and here. Keep watching his channel for more. And, of course, check out the Ex-Muslims of North America’s website for even more resources.

Catholic League’s Bill Donohue Worried That Gays at St. Patrick’s Day Parade “Can’t Keep Their Pants On”

For the first time ever, an LGBT group (yes, only one) will be allowed to march openly in the New York City St. Patrick’s Day parade. And Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York and an Irish-American with a long track record of opposing LGBT equality, is the grand marshal.

But that’s not the funny part here. Dolan is surprisingly on board with the parade allowing LGBT people; other Catholics, however, had comically panicked reactions.

The most hilarious of these came from Catholic League president Bill Donohue (below, left), who essentially told journalist Michelangelo Signorile that he’s afraid of gays masturbating publicly during the parade.

“Here’s the hitch,” Donohue said, about allowing gays to march. “They do have dress requirements and other kinds of strictures. The question is, ‘Will the gays behave?’ Gays have been known to take their clothes off in the parade. They can’t keep their pants on sometimes when they march in the gay pride parade.”

When told that in fact the St. Patrick’s Day Parade gets quite unruly, with reports of drunkenness, violence and police run-ins each year, with heterosexual people certainly not “behaving,” Donohue insisted that they still “keep our pants on,” though he acknowledged he’s never been to Mardi Gras in New Orleans where many heterosexuals certainly engage in sexual expression, sometimes unclothed.

“We keep our pants on,” he said. “You guys have masturbated on the street. I have pictures of what went on in the Stonewall 1994 gay pride parade that you couldn’t put on CNN or publish in The New York Times. Men and women went naked in the street in front of St. Patrick’s Cathedral. I think it is a ‘wow’ when men can’t keep their pants on when they march.”

Wow is right! Other religious groups are accusing Dolan of pandering to gay groups and calling on him to bow out of the parade.

National Catholic Register writer Pat Archbold called the archbishop’s participation a “total capitulation to gay identity groups.”

Catholic World News editor Philip Lawler said Dolan must step down as grand marshal and admit the parade no longer has ties to religious tradition. It has become just another civic event, Lawler argues.

But Dolan has done a surprisingly good job of holding his own and supporting the LGBT group’s participation — all things considered, of course. Since resigning as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, he’s made more generally supportive statements regarding LGBT people, even though he’s still unarguably anti-marriage-equality.

This includes words of kindness and support for Michael Sam, the first openly LGBT person drafted into the NFL, and echoing Pope Francis‘ words advocating for spiritual unity.

Last year, Dolan said that he supported lesbians and gays marching in the parade.

“I know that there are [already] thousands and thousands of gay people marching in this parade. I know it. And I’m glad they are,” he said.

When asked on ABC News last year about LGBT Catholics who felt rejected by the Church, Dolan issued an answer that seemed to follow in Pope Francis’ example.

“The first thing I’d say to them is, ‘I love you, too. And God loves you. And you are made in God’s image and likeness,’” Dolan told the Sunday talk show This Week.

There’s a lot to react to here: I’m glad the parade is open to queer groups, I wish more than one group were allowed, and I’m not surprised at either Cardinal Dolan’s appointment to grand marshal nor his wishy-washy support of LGBT people at the parade.

What’s worth remembering, though, is that some extreme Christians think that the only reason gays get together is for public masturbation sessions. Man, oh man.