"Above all, this is a question of conscience. Using the initiative process to give a minority fewer freedoms than the majority, and to inject the state into fundamentally private affairs, is a dangerous precedent, and an unworthy one for this Commonwealth. Never in the long history of our model Constitution have we used the initiative petition to restrict freedom. We ought not start now."

"We have work to do over the next year to turn this around. I am heartened by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the members of the Legislature - a margin of over 2 to 1 - voted to move on. I pledge to do what I can to build on that momentum, so that our Constitution will continue to stand for liberty and freedom, and not discrimination."

- Deval Patrick, Massachusetts Governor-elect on the Massachusetts Legislature's decision to vote on a measure to advance a gay marriage ban to the ballot. Patrick is pro same-sex marriage.

Separation of Church and State, No Excuses!

(While this post is technically by dday76, I couldn’t quite keep my fingers out of it. Aviaa-ian inserts are marked with italics. BTW- this post is almost entirely facetious.)

I was in Rome the other day and thought I would pop over to the Vatican to make sure there was no mischief. I walked into the courtyard, saw the people, a big fountain, and some enormous, really expensive looking buildings they built after solving world hunger... and, oh, what's this? A nativity scene? This is government-owned land! How dare they! This huge display flies in the face of Church-State Separation. Angrily shaking my fist, I vowed to follow up with a stern letter to the local magistrate.

Yes, I’m sure the Pope will be very interested in hearing such concerns. Heaven forbid the Vatican promote religion or religious displays! Perhaps he just wasn’t aware such clear conflict of interest was occurring on the property?

By the way, if you haven’t followed the link to look at the picture, you absolutely should. Facetious or not, we were really there…

On the other hand, if these were pious people, maybe I could also benefit from their blessings. I went over to the fountain, tossed a coin in, and wished really, really hard for world peace and just a few small things for myself, Amen.

Clearly, your time at the Vatican was better spent than mine. I just wandered around pondering the items one would include on a Rome/Vatican purity test:

__ had sex on an ancient monument? (3 pts)
__ had sex in a cathedral? (5 pts) with a nun/priest? (10 pts) with the Pope? (50 pts)

… and so forth.

When talking with a local resident later, I found this wasn't the correct way to do one's wishing, or as they call it "praying" at the Vatican. They said something about kneeling and clasping one's hands together, so I noted that for the next time. I'm not sure how well it works though. I came across a young girl literally in the shadow of the Vatican, on her knees, hands clasped, head bowed, just praying her little heart out. But her plastic cup barely had one Euro in it. Almost an hour later, she was still on the same sidewalk and her god's grace hadn't made much headway in filling the plastic cup. Hmm... she perhaps should have been wearing only one sandal or offering up a gourd or such.

God works in myssstttteeerious ways. It makes perfect sense that all present-day miracles are indistinguishable from chance and coincidence, while reports of past miracles of floods, plagues, and the like were so much more… well… miraculous! Helping beggars at the Vatican? Clearly too obvious a miracle for the new, “subtle” version of god.

Petition

We, the undersigned, call upon elected and appointed officials to join us in reaffirming America's religious freedom by demonstrating a commitment to the following:

• Every American should have the right to make personal decisions -- about family life, reproductive health, end of life care and other matters of personal conscience.
• American tax dollars should not go to charities that discriminate in hiring based on religious belief or that promote a particular religious faith as a requirement for receiving services.
• Political candidates should not be endorsed or opposed by houses of worship.
• Public schools should teach with academic integrity and without the promotion of religious preference or belief.
• Decisions about scientific and health policies should be based on the best available scientific data, not on religious doctrine.

We join together, as the most diverse nation in the world, to commit ourselves to defending and preserving this freedom.

First Freedom First’s above petition is just shy of the 50,000 signatures they hope to gather by the end of the week. Haven’t signed yet and want to? Visit their web site http://www.firstfreedomfirst.org/.

Compromises

An update on my Four Witnesses post of last week:

PLANS to reform controversial Islamic laws dealing with rape and adultery, which have attracted condemnation in the West, have been watered down by Pakistan’s Government in a compromise with fundamentalist mullahs.

(a few paragraphs down)

Supporters of the compromise say that when the law is passed rape victims will be able to choose between prosecuting suspects under the four-witness rule or under Pakistan’s civil penal code. “If a woman has four witnesses she can file a case under the Hudood law, or if she does not have witnesses she can file a case under the penal code,” said Mr Zafar.

Under another change made after pressure from the Islamic parties, a man and a woman would be charged with lewdness if they indulge in wilful sex, an offence punishable with five years imprisonment.

The Muttehida Qaumi Movement, a secular party, had threatened to quit the ruling coalition if the Government presented the amended Bill. “We cannot support an anti-women Bill,” said Farooq Sattar, one of its leaders.

- Musharraf retreats on rape law

So, Musharraf compromised. Where’s the harm in that? After all, compromise is such a pretty word, alluding to give and take, to sharing and love. Compromise is fair. Compromise is good. Compromise makes everyone happy, yes?

(shrugs)

Compromising when choosing a restaurant to dine at with your best friend? A brilliant idea. Compromising when amending ridiculous rape laws? Well, perhaps not so much so.

The fairest possible outcome isn’t always the median of all possible positions, and it’s certainly not necessarily best to settle on the muddled middle between right and wrong. Sometimes, the fairest outcome has nothing to do with compromise, but instead with evaluating the situation and possibly just choosing what makes the most sense.

In this particular case, if the women have a choice in the matter, why should I be making such a fuss? Certainly, all women will choose to be evaluated in the matter fairest to them, correct? I’m not so sure about that. If religious law is a government sponsored choice, I’d imagine women will continue to experience pressure from their families and communities to submit to it rather than the secular law. Even if not, offering this as a choice is, at the very least, an implied government sanction of discriminatory absurdity.

Giving the same weight to Islamic law as secular penal law isn’t a compromise, it’s just crap. In this case, it’s also coercion. Antiquated, discriminatory religious law has absolutely no place within governmental law. It doesn’t belong as a choice. It doesn’t belong at all.

Public Expression of Religion Act

The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its dismay as the House Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 2679, the "Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005" (PERA). The bill would bar the recovery of attorneys' fees to those who win lawsuits asserting their fundamental constitutional and civil rights in cases brought under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

"If PERA were to pass, Congress would isolate and discourage enforcement of a specific piece of our Bill of Rights," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "PERA advocates are seriously misguided in their claim of defending religious freedom. This legislation would in fact weaken the very freedom they claim to be protecting. We are deeply disappointed in the committee's decision to allow PERA to come to a vote."

- ACLU Condemns House Panel's Passage of "Public Expression of Religion Act," Calls Bill A Direct Attack on Freedom of Religion

Comments/reactions later.

Four Witnesses

Under the current law, approved by a former military dictator in 1979, prosecuting a rape case requires testimony from four witnesses, making punishment almost impossible because such attacks are rarely public.

A woman who claims she was raped but fails to prove her case can be convicted of adultery, punishable by death.

Maulana Fazalur Rahman, a leader of the Islamic coalition, said Tuesday that lawmakers in his group would vacate their seats in the National Assembly if the government tries to get the assembly's approval to change the law.
"We will render every sacrifice for the protection of the Shariah (traditional Islamic) laws," he said at a news conference.

However, the ruling Pakistan Muslim Party — which has a majority in the assembly — has praised Musharraf for taking steps to amend the law and end the four-witness requirement.
- Rape law rankles some Pakistan lawmakers

Victim: Would you mind dragging me out in front of at least four witnesses before you rape me?
Rapist: Oh, certainly. After all, I wouldn’t want you to be stoned to death for adultery should you become impregnated due to my act of violence against you.

Yeah right. Four witnesses. (shakes head)

Kudos to President Musharraf's party for challenging this ridiculous law.

(hums to self about the importance of the separation of religious law and government... not to mention Amnesty International, an organization that has been working for years to prevent stoning-women-because-they-were-raped-without-witness situations)

Hope for Dean

Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman, is famous for his loose lips and exuberant vocal chords, which may help explain the muted reaction to his recent warning about religious participation in public life. A few months ago, Mr Dean told the Christian Science Monitor that the "religious community" would have to decide "whether they want to be tax exempt or involved in politics".

-Religious voters could doom the Democrats

(applause for Dean)

... and so continues my love/disappointment relationship with Dean.


The rest of the article just explains how AWFUL Democrats are because they suppress the rights of the religious right. I thought they were wooing the religious right. (shrugs)

Peace, war, and therapy

I stumbled upon Grant Swank’s Atheist Attacks 'In God We Trust', an article that relies largely on phrases such as “on behalf of the power of darkness” and impossible transitions to make its points. Clearly, I was not his target audience.

However, potentially demonstrating a predilection towards cognitive masochism (which I shall now refer to as PtCM), I decided to check out Swank’s blog. It was pretty much what I expected; elegant illogic and superstition with a large dose of melodrama... banners denouncing the ACLU and Islam (and Google? Is Google ungodly?)... all to be expected and not really anything worth writing about. But then (drum-roll)... the quotes at the end of each of his blog posts grabbed my attention:

ALLAH: “Fight, slay Unbelievers wherever ye find them.Seize them, beleaguer them, lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.”

Qur’an, Sura 9:5

CHRIST: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

- from Mr. Swank’s blog

(blinks)

Yes, Islam can be a terrible, violent religion. However, we are claiming that Christianity is a peaceful, loving one? Here, let me try again, but with some other quotes from those same books:

Surely (as for) those who believe and do good deeds for them will Allah bring about love.

Qur’an, Shakir, 019.096

You must destroy all the peoples the LORD your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you.

Deuteronomy 7:16

- obviously, not from Mr. Swank’s blog

I have a good friend who likes to insist everyone from Ann Coulter to Pat Robertson to George Bush (2) aren’t “real Christians” because of their tendencies towards meanness (and stupidity), intolerance (and stupidity), and warmongering (and stupidity). Real Christians, she insists, are nice and good and kind... as she is (and indeed she is). She insists these other sorts are misinterpreting Christianity. My response is that there is enough Bible for everyone to pick and chose his or her own favorite quotes to support pretty much whatever deed or misdeed he or she wishes to promote. While I have a higher degree of social tolerance for my friend’s variety of “nice” Christianity than I do Coulter’s brand of the same faith, declaring this is the “real” Christianity is ignoring 83.245%* of the Bible.

So, according to the Bible, what sort of creature is this Christian god?

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
- 1 Corinthians 14:33

Sounds nice. And organized. There are few things equal to a nice, organized deity.

The LORD is a warrior
- Exodus 15:3

Well, perhaps a little less peaceful, but I suppose he could be a peaceful warrior… right?

I will smash them one against the other, fathers and sons alike, declares the LORD. I will allow no pity or mercy or compassion to keep me from destroying them.'
- Jeremiah 13:14

(blinks)

Well, maybe not. That definitely does not sound peaceful.

The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.
- James 5:11

The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.
- Psalm 145:9

(blinks again)

Wait! You said NO compassion and NO mercy above. I mean, it’s not that I want you to be violent... but aren’t you sending mixed signals here?

... you have kindled my anger, and it will burn forever.
- Jeremiah 17:4

For his anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime;
- Psalm 30:5

(shrugs) Well, perhaps to god, forever is only a moment.

(At this point, I stopped. I’d compile a list of all of the MULTITUDE of violent and/or contradictory quotes from the bible, but, hey, it’s already been done several times, and I’d rather spend the next few years of my life eating, sleeping, and breathing rather than constantly typing.)

Oh, whatever. So god is seemingly severely bipolar. What is this to me, an atheist who reveres the Bible less than her daily cup of coffee? Nothing, if it remains a private affair between the Christian, his or her god, and possibly god’s therapist. However, as soon as the Bible becomes the basis of any sort of law (i.e. as grounds to oppose same-sex marriage or promote public prayer in schools), I’d argue Christians need to consider all of the book they are holding up as the irrefutable word of god, rather than just the passages that make the prettiest footers on blog posts.

So, Christian majority, I respect that many (most?) of the Christians in this country practice a generally “nice” form of Christianity and are peaceful, compassionate people. I know and love many of these peaceful, compassionate Christians and have watched them do many peaceful, compassionate things. I just sometimes want to scream when you explain to me how you know your god disapproves of the “homosexual lifestyle” because of his clear stance on the issue in the Bible. This and other gems from this book are the grounds for your moral compass, while you entirely ignore so many other passages from the exact same book.

I suppose that’s your choice. You can interpret the Bible however you want and it’s really not my business. However, I still think it’s arbitrary. So, please, just don’t make me and the other “others” of this nation play by your rules. Your faith with your god becomes my issue only when you make it my issue, when edicts from this highly contradictory, often downright discriminatory book are pushed into my life in the form of public policy.

* Yes, yes, an entirely fabricated number. However, it was a lot more colorful than using the bland, half, three-quarters or whatever, right? Either way, but, 53.2% of statistics are made up on the spot. I’m just being trendy.