Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1988

The Supreme Court Also Said Today It Would Not (Yet) Decide if the Mount Soledad Cross Is Unconstitutional

Lost in the shuffle of today’s Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court issued another decision today that should make church/state separation advocates smile. At least a little bit.

A quick recap: The Mount Soledad 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

Last December, 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.

Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSBlog explained:

When the proper time comes, the new brief said, the government will ask the Justices to overrule a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit more than three years ago that the Mount Soledad cross represents a violation of the Constitution’s religion clause. It was in reaction to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that a federal judge reluctantly ruled last December that the cross had to come down, as “the only remedy” for that violation. The judge’s order is on hold for the time being.

…

… Taking down the monument, [the petition] said, would “unnecessarily foster religious division.”

…

But, it added: “To be clear, the United States continues to believe that this case raises an issue of great public importance.” If the order to remove the cross is upheld by the Ninth Circuit, “the government expects” to file its own appeal to the Supreme Court, it said.

The Obama administration, under the leadership of Eric Holder, was attempting to defend the existence of a giant Christian symbol on federal property. The fact that the Cross is more than 60 years old is irrelevant. Keep in mind that, before 1989, it was referred to as the “Mt. Soledad Easter Cross” and not as a war memorial — the name was changed to make it sound less “Christian-y.” This is so obviously an endorsement of Christianity on public land. The administration should be following the lower courts’ lead, not defying the Constitution by defending it.

…

Today, the Supreme Court via Justice Alito said it would not take up the case before lower courts had a chance to rule on the matter:

Since that time [2012], the District Court has issued an order requiring the memorial to be removed, but it has stayed that order pending appeal. The Court of Appeals has not yet reviewed that order on appeal. Seeking to bypass that step, petitioner seeks centiorari before judgment. In my view, it has not met the very demanding standard we require in order to grant centiorari at that stage. In light of the stay, any review by this Court can await the decision of the Court of Appeals. I therefore agree with the Court’s decision to deny the petition.

This is very good news. Given the conservative bent of this Court, having them rule on any church/state separation case is a bad idea (just look at how they ruled in Town of Greece v. Galloway.) I’ll gladly take postponing the case in lieu of Justice Kennedy deciding it.

(Portions of this article have been posted before.)

Supreme Court Rules on Hobby Lobby Case: Corporations (Somehow) Have Religion Beliefs

The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 that Hobby Lobby and other closely-held (family-owned) corporations have the right to deny contraception in their insurance packages.

The Affordable Care Act mandates that companies must provide contraception coverage in their insurance packages. While Hobby Lobby covers 16 forms of contraception, including condoms, they refuse to cover IUDs and morning-after pills because they wrongly believe they would be aiding in abortions rather than simply preventing pregnancy from occurring in the first place. It’s that misunderstanding of biology that led the evangelical Christian-owned Hobby Lobby owners to sue the Obama administration. And it’s companies like Hobby Lobby, which are family-owned, that just got the opportunity to continue depriving employees of comprehensive health coverage. (Some good news: The government can still provide that additional coverage to those women. Will women have to pay extra for that? It’s unclear.)

So what now? This was a very narrow ruling, applying only to the contraception mandate. It’s possible that other Christian-owned companies could stop covering all forms of contraception — including the kinds that have nothing whatsoever to do with pregnancy. However, the ruling does not allow, say, Jehovah’s Witnesses who own companies to deny their employees blood transfusions in their insurance plans.

According to SCOTUSBlog, “It is extremely likely that the Obama administration will by regulation provide for the government to pay for the coverage. So it is unlikely that there will be a substantial gap in coverage.” So it’s a victory for Hobby Lobby, but not as devastating a loss as it could have been.

…

Congratulations, conservative Christian business owners. You win. You can finally legally discriminate against women by denying them access to certain kinds of birth control normally available through their insurance.

Just remember this, Green family: While you’re reveling in victory, millions of young people are fully aware of what you’re really celebrating. It’s not about “religious liberty” because your rights were never up for debate. We know you’re happy because, once again, Christianity has been used as a weapon of discrimination. Enjoy your Supreme Court victory while it lasts because, in exchange, you’re about to lose even more of your social power.

This is just a continuation of all those other times you used your power to make others’ lives worse. Every time you stood in the way of marriage equality, more people left their churches, vowing never to return. For years now, we’ve known that the reputation of Christians is that they’re anti-science, anti-gay, and anti-women. You’ve only solidified those stereotypes and churches will pay for that as they lose members fed up with being associated with an organization that takes joy in denying others freedom and happiness.

…

The Center For Inquiry, which filed an amicus brief against Hobby Lobby, issued a statement denouncing the decision:

“The potential effects of this decision are absolutely chilling, setting a precedent that is sure to reverberate far beyond the issue of contraceptive coverage,” said Ronald A. Lindsay, President and CEO of the Center for Inquiry.

“This is not a decision that advances religious freedom — it is a decision that enshrines religious privilege over and above employee well-being,” added Lindsay. “This decision defies common sense, lacks compassion, and has the potential to harm us all.”

The Secular Coalition for America also issued a statement against the ruling:

Amanda Metskas, President of the Secular Coalition for America, said today’s decision by the court will allow employers to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and interfere with the employees’ personal health care decisions.

“This is a sad day for anyone who believes in true religious freedom. With this decision the Supreme Court set a terrible precedent for religious interference in individual choice,” Metskas said. “This decision allows for-profit business owners to impose their religious preferences and practices on their employees, leaving the religious freedom of millions of Americans at the mercy of their individual employers.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which also filed an amicus brief against Hobby Lobby, was dismayed by the ruling:

“This decision is a double-edged disaster,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It conjures up fake religious freedom rights for corporations while being blind to the importance of birth control to America’s working women.”

Added Lynn, “The justices have set a dangerous precedent. While the Obama administration may arrange for the government to provide contraceptives, a future administration could easily take that away. In years to come, many women may find their access to birth control hanging by a thread.”

The American Humanist Association chimed in as well:

“The Supreme Court has placed the religious views of corporate shareholders over the legitimate health care concerns of employees,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “This isn’t religious liberty — it’s religious intrusion that will negatively affect many hard-working Americans.”

…

“The Supreme Court is endangering the health care of many Americans based on the fictitious idea that a corporation has religious convictions,” said David Niose, legal director of the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center. “By expanding the rights of corporations, this court is in fact contracting the rights of hard-working Americans who expect full health care coverage as required by law.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote:

Today’s decision is also an affront to the reproductive rights of American women. No religious employer has the right to dictate which prescriptive birth control method women employees may or may not choose.

Once again an all-Catholic, all-male, all-ultra-conservative majority of five has voted en bloc to eviscerate fundamental rights. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers who provide health care coverage must offer preventive care, including prescriptive contraceptives, does not violate the rights of Hobby Lobby, even though it is run by a fundamentalist zealot.

They also urge you to call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the act that made this decision possible.

Here’s American Atheists:

“This is a disgrace and an indignity to Americans’ right to be protected from the abuses of other people’s religions,” said American Atheists President David Silverman. “Shame on the Supreme Court, which has effectively told Americans that if you can come up with a religious excuse, you are above the law. This is an injustice of the highest order for separation of religion and government, for equality, and for the constitutional protections guaranteed to all Americans.”

“The Court has granted religious liberties to some corporations, claiming they have the same rights as citizens. What about the rights of the women, the workers? We fear the consequences of this decision on publicly traded corporations in the future,” said Managing Director Amanda Knief, a lawyer and public policy expert.

…

Here are a few select excerpts from Justice Ginsburg‘s dissent:

Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.

…

The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.

…

… the Court’s reasoning appears to permit commercial enterprises like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga to exclude from their group health plans all forms of contraceptives.

…

Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases… would have to be evaluated on its own… apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.”… Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.

(This post is still in progress.)

(Image via Shutterstock)

Why Are These Wilkes-Barre (PA) City Officials Placing Banners About Religion Where Few People Can See Them?

Earlier this year, in anticipation of both the National Day of Prayer and National Day of Reason, atheist Justin Vacula of the NEPA Freethought Society went to the Wilkes-Barre (Pennsylvania) City Hall, gave them a check for $50, and handed them a banner reading “Nothing Fails Like Prayer” to put up in the public square. That banner was supposed to go up on April 28. For whatever reason, city officials didn’t put it up until three days later… but at least it went up, right?

There’s the banner for Mental Health Month, and the banner for the National Day of Prayer, and… hey, wait, where did Justin’s banner go?

Well, to see it, you’d have to walk around the other side. The side that no one in the Square could see.

That’s where city officials placed it, despite Justin following all the rules they set out.

Keep in mind there was plenty of space on the front side. (In fact, on St. Patrick’s Day, the city hung six banners on the front side of that scaffolding.) It seemed pretty obvious that city officials just didn’t want people to hear a message that went against the popular Day of Prayer.

When Justin confronted city officials about their decision, they gave him a giant runaround, admitting they had no good justification for why his banner was given a less-than-prominent placement. They moved his banner to the front… but only after the National Day of Prayer event was over and the time for the banner to be effective had passed.

And now, it seems, they’re trying to cover their own asses.

A group called the The Lay Servants of the Immaculate Heart Of Mary decided to put up a banner of their own in the Public Square (clearly in response to Justin’s banner). It reads:

Nothing Prevails Like Prayer

Pray The Rosary at The Sacred Fatima Grotto

North Street Wilkes-Barre

Sunday Nights @ 7:00 P. M.

Sponsored by:

The Lay Servants Of The IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY

What’s strange is the placement of the banner: It’s on the backside of the scaffolding, just as Justin’s was before. And it’s not like there’s no room on the front.

Justin wonders:

Will city officials now, displaying this new banner unprominently, use this as reason to openly discriminate — as they already have seem to have done — on the basis of viewpoint by placing certain banners, whether they be mine or others, at their discretion with little to no accountability or oversight, out of prominence?

Can you see the city officials now? Oh, we always hang banners about religion on the back of the scaffolding. We began that policy after a Christian group’s Day of Prayer banner was placed on the front.

I sent an email to city council members yesterday asking about how decisions are made regarding banner placements. I also emailed the church and asked if they were aware of the less-than-prominent placement. As of today, I haven’t received a response from either group.

(Parts of this article were posted earlier)

New York Pastor Abandons Faith, Saying There’s No Godly Purpose for Starvation of Children, Slavery, and Genocide

Humans of New York is a massive photo blog featuring the often-fascinating portraits of street photographer Brandon Stanton. Stanton, who has more than 7,000,000 followers on Facebook, also does quickie interviews with the strangers he captures. He knows how to get them to open up about things that matter. Take this one:

That’s one of Stanton’s latest photos. His subject is a former pastor who lost his faith:

I’ve been a deep believer my whole life. 18 years as a Southern Baptist. More than 40 years as a mainline Protestant. I’m an ordained pastor. But it’s just stopped making sense to me.

You see people doing terrible things in the name of religion, and you think: ‘Those people believe just as strongly as I do. They’re just as convinced as I am.’ And it just doesn’t make sense anymore. It doesn’t make sense to believe in a God that dabbles in people’s lives. If a plane crashes, and one person survives, everyone thanks God. They say: ‘God had a purpose for that person. God saved her for a reason!’ Do we not realize how cruel that is? Do we not realize how cruel it is to say that if God had a purpose for that person, he also had a purpose in killing everyone else on that plane?

And a purpose in starving millions of children? A purpose in slavery and genocide? For every time you say that there’s a purpose behind one person’s success, you invalidate billions of people. You say there is a purpose to their suffering. And that’s just cruel.

I hope this newly-minted non-believer — who remains anonymous, like almost all of Stanton’s subjects — finds his way to the comforting community of the Clergy Project, where he’ll be in the company of more than 600 other honest men and women of the cloth who could no longer live with the severe cognitive dissonance that religion imposes.

Academic Journal Seeking Submissions About Atheism and Science

The journal Science, Religion & Culture will soon release a special issue focusing on atheism, secularity, and science. If you’re a researcher who cares about those issues, you may want to consider submitting your work. All the details are right here.

The deadline for submissions is December 31.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Speaks at the Secular Coalition for America’s Lobby Day Event

At the Secular Coalition for America’s Lobby Day, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) was one of the featured speakers and video of his talk is now online:

If any parts stand out to you, please leave the timestamp/summary in the comments!

(Image via the SCA Facebook page)

Evolutionary Family Ties

You can find this image and many others like it on the Friendly Atheist Facebook page!

Matt Dillahunty on the Value of Debates

Matt Dillahunty has debated Christian apologists for several years and knows the value of speaking to an audience of religious people. In the video below, elaborates on that and mentions the one person he won’t debate again:

I don’t do debates personally, but I agree with what Matt says here. The goal isn’t to defeat your opponent. The goal is really to plant seeds in the audience members who disagree with you — seeds that will hopefully bloom at some point in the future.

(via The Thinking Atheist)

Canadian Doctor Refuses to Prescribe Birth Control Because Jesus

We expect conservative Christian doctors in the U.S. to prioritize their religious beliefs over the needs of their patients. And we certainly don’t expect Canada to take any lessons about health care from us… but that’s what Chantal Barry of Westglen Medical Centre in Calgary seems to have done.

When Joan Chand’oiseau visited a walk-in clinic and saw this sign, she was rightfully outraged:

“Please be informed that the physician on duty today WILL NOT prescribe the Birth Control Pill. Thank you.”

Anyone who needed the pill was given a list of other clinics in the region that could give it to them. Why Barry’s relationship with Jesus matters more than her professional obligations is something her employers should be concerned about. But there is a loophole in the system that lets her get away with it:

Under the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta’s policy on Moral or Religious Beliefs Affecting Medical Care, doctors can refuse to provide medical services, but must ensure the patient is offered timely access to those services from another practitioner.

Trevor Theman, registrar with the CPSA, said the policy does not require Westglen to have a doctor on hand who can prescribe the pill.

…

“In an ideal world, women who need birth control or are seeking birth control will have a regular doctor and won’t just be dropping into a walk-in clinic to get a prescription for birth control pills.”

In fact, one in five Calgarians –­ 200,000 people — is without a family doctor and rely on walk-in clinics to serve their medical needs.

The CPSA needs to strengthen their policy before more women are left without immediate help due to doctors who refuse to do their jobs.

Keep in mind that most birth control pills are not abortion pills. By lumping them all together, Barry suffers from both a lack of empathy and a lack of scientific knowledge, a combination that makes her selfish and incompetent. At the very least, her employers should keep someone on staff who can do the job properly when Barry’s on duty since she’s incapable of doing it on her own. Why she should be allowed to keep her license is beyond me.

It’s irrelevant that a doctor who can fulfill the prescription may be at a nearby clinic. The fact that patients can’t get medicine they need because the doctor on duty doesn’t feel like giving it to them is absurd. It’s like going to McDonald’s and ordering a Big Mac, only to have the sole person working the register refuse to ring it up because he’s vegetarian.

If you can’t fulfill the basic requirements of your job, then go into another line of work. Don’t screw over patients because you think Jesus wants you to.

(Thanks to Lorne for the link)

Australian Shock Jock Fired After Bringing Up Muhammad’s Pedophilia

This coming August, the Festival of Dangerous Ideas will take place in Sydney Australia. Speakers include Pussy Riot, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein talking about why philosophers are more important than scientists, Salman Rushdie talking about how television has replaced the novel, and — until a few days ago — Uthman Badar talking about how “Honour Killings Are Morally Justified.” There was so much backlash against that title that Badar was disinvited from speaking.

Normally, the controversy would’ve been limited to that. But then a local Howard-Stern-like radio host jumped into the fray.

Shock jock Michael Smith (above) said that inviting Badar was like inviting a KKK leader. But then things took an awkward turn when he began complaining about Islam in general:

… the Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile, a pederast, a sexual offender, a man who promoted the idea that it was okay to marry a six-year-old and consummate the marriage when the little girl was nine. And that’s written into their books, it’s part of the philosophy…

He’s not necessarily wrong about the age discrepancy there — I’ll admit that — but I have to take issue with his characterization of Muslims as a whole. His implication isn’t just that Badar should never have been invited to speak; it’s really that all Muslims should be banned from speaking. As if all of them support pedophilia because of what Muhammad did with Aisha.

On Smith’s own site, he tried to make his case:

At 7.15 last night 2GB’s Program Director David Kidd phoned me and said, “We won’t be needing you, you can’t call a Deity a paedophile.”

David told me he was referring to the interview Ben Fordham conducted with me on Thursday this past week. Just for the record, Muhammad was a man, a prophet — but not a Deity.

I’ve thought about what I said in answer to Ben’s question. I think it’s wrong for a man in his 50s to have sex with a 9 year old child. It is wrong, it’s a crime and it should be called out for what it is.

I know Ray Hadley disagrees with me — perhaps Ray could let us know what part of a grown man having sex with a 9 year old girl is right?

Sure, it’s a crime… now. And go ahead and call Muhammad out for that. But while you’re at it, remember that in the Old Testament, God was a bloodthirsty, genocidal maniac. Does that mean all Christians approve of those actions?

And how old was Mary when God impregnated her with Jesus? While the Bible isn’t explicit, scholars have put her age at anywhere from 12 to 16. So I guess the Christian God is a pedophile/rapist. Does that mean all Christians should be banned from speaking at this festival, too?

No. Smith is just going after the Muslim speaker.

Holy books contain a lot of awful bullshit we would never let slide in modern times. It doesn’t mean believers accept or approve of all those ideas. To call out Badar for what the Koran says instead of what his talk was supposed to be about misses the point.

It’s worth pointing out that Badar has said repeatedly this week that, while the title was clearly provocative, he didn’t actually plan to justify honor killings.

Smith didn’t bother to learn more about Badar’s actual topic. Why bother? That might’ve required more nuanced thinking. Why do that when you can keep things black, white, and overly simple?

By the way, even if Badar wanted to defend honor killings, wouldn’t that be a “dangerous idea” fitting the bill of the conference? He’d still have to defend it — which I doubt he or anyone else could — but it’s hard to understand why people are so offended by the mere question instead of the possible justifications someone would raise in defense of the crime.

(Thanks to Shayne for the link)