Jesus, no, but no also to Allah.
Since the uproar is about to explode, I want to get ahead of the train on this one: the nomination of David Hamilton to 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
Already, the Christian Conservative backlash is started. A Washington Times editorial came out today entitled, “Jesus, no, but yes to Allah.” The editorial goes on to extrapolate Alabama Senator Jess Session’s letter to fellow Senators outlining the opposition to Hamilton’s nomination. The objection is essentially to Hamilton’s belief that judicial interpretations of the law should be footnoted in the Constitution, a theoretical issue in Constitutional Law; that he is an ‘empathetic’ judge; that he is ‘lenient;’ a ruling in favor of property seizing for private economic development; and, the one that will send the dimwits flying, a ruling that the Indiana legislature cannot sanction official prayer in favor of any one religion.
However, on the final point (objection #3 mentioned in the editorial), the Times, echoing Sessions, writes,
Mr. Sessions noted, though, that Judge Hamilton’s odd ruling in Hinrichs v. Bosma “prohibited prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives that expressly mentioned Jesus Christ … yet he allowed prayers which mentioned Allah.”
While we may or may not share Session’s objections, this is (and I presume, will be) a blatant illustration of political spin doctoring. The message the conservative opposition will push is that Sessions is anti-Christian and a leader in the supposed oppression of Christians, and the opposition will drive this home by playing on the popular fear (or disdain) of Muslims and Islam. But, it’s false.
You see, Sessions (and the right) can get away with this claim because in Hamilton’s ruling, he does explicitly prohibit prayers mentioning Jesus Christ. But, that’s not the whole story. First, the House prayers were almost exclusively Christian (appealing to Jesus Christ), except for two of which one was Jewish and the other Muslim. So, given that the prayers were pretty much always Christian, it makes sense for a judge to spell it out because the case was mostly an issue for Christians. Second, Hamilton’s ruling does not only ban Christians or saying Jesus, it bans any that are exclusively sectarian. Below is an excerpt of the 60-page case ruling:
<blockquote>To summarize, the evidence shows that the official prayers offered to open sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives repeatedly and consistently advance the beliefs that define the Christian religion: the resurrection and divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. The Establishment Clause “means at the very least that government may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed (including a preference for Christianity over other religions). ‘The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.’” County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573, 605 (1989), quoting Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). The sectarian content of the substantial majority of official prayers in the Indiana House therefore takes the prayers outside the safe harbor the Supreme Court recognized for inclusive, non-sectarian legislative prayers in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). Plaintiffs have standing as Indiana taxpayers to bring their claims, and they are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. This relief will not prohibit the House from opening its session with prayers if it chooses to do so, but will require that any official prayers be inclusive and non-sectarian, and not advance one particular religion. * * *
Conclusion. When the Founders of this Nation set the boundaries on the power of government, the first words they wrote in the Bill of Rights were “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” The Founders recognized that we are a people of many strong and vigorous faiths. They acted to protect the liberty to practice those faiths. The Founders also knew centuries of history in which religious conflicts had caused war and oppression. They recognized that even the best intentions of people of faith can lead to division, exclusion, and worse. And they recognized that a majority who sees its faith as true and benign can be tempted in a democratic republic to try to use the power and prestige of government to advance that faith in ways that would actually divide and exclude.
All of us who have inherited the liberties of the religion clauses of the First Amendment continue to elaborate on their meaning and application one case at a time. In this case, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction against the Speaker in his official capacity barring him from permitting sectarian prayer as part of the official proceedings of the Indiana House of Representatives. If the Speaker chooses to continue any form of legislative prayer, he shall advise persons offering such a prayer (a) that it must be nonsectarian and must not be used to proselytize or advance any one faith or belief or to disparage any other faith or belief, and (b) that they should refrain from using Christ’s name or title or any other denominational appeal. See Simpson v. Chesterfield County, 404 F.3d at 278-79, 284.
You see, although explicitly mentioning ‘Christ,’ the conclusion prohibits all sectarian prayer (meaning that the prayer appeals exclusively to one religion, and yes, conservatives, that includes Islam) and the use of not only Christ’s name, but the title or any other denominational appeal. So now, it isn’t just Christians who can’t proselytize in the government, no one religion can.
Just ‘Common Sense’
Last night a friend of mine hypothesized, “Don’t you think that if Obama, or any politician, would just speak in the terms of the common man, explaining exactly what’s going on, then they would be much more appreciated or successful?” Sure, look at Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. They appeal to the “common man,” with the idea of “common sense” government.
Both Palin and Beck have appealed to many people who want “common sense” government. Much of the attraction to Sarah Palin is that she “speaks to the common person.” Beck wrote a book, a rip from Thomas Paine, Common Sense. However, the underlying problem with this whole idea and/or desire for “common sense” is the simple fact that, well, governance is not common sense.
The idea of ‘common sense’ government lacks reality in that it appeals simply to naivete and broad, unfounded assumptions. Government is aghast in conflicting variables and ideologies. It is strategic, tedious, and experimental. It involves foreign policy and defense, theories of justice and law, economic speculation and theory, intelligence, ideology, and leadership. It is, perhaps more than most leadership fields, so meticulous that the very idea of ‘simple solutions and common sense’ is nothing but empty, stupid words.
We can’t have people leading government, the United States, on their own ‘common sense.’ Just because you don’t understand political science theory or the role and impact of government, doesn’t mean that government has become to ‘complicated,’ and thus we should return it to ‘common sense.’ No, it means either you should learn more about government and political science, so maybe you can understand what policy makers are saying
Sinclair Lewis wrote, “When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
The Freedom Federation is the soft and quiet form of Ameritianity.org. Take a look at Glenn Beck’s 9/12 project, watch Fox defend the Christian Crusade, and you might start to think twice about with whom you associate.
Another Attack on Christianity in the U.S.A.
Wouldn’t you know! The secular, godless government is attacking REAL American Christians again! This time, they are putting them in jail!
Dale Neumann of Wisconsin, a born-again Christian, is charged with reckless homicide for putting God before materialism! Oh Heaven’s forbid! Neumann’s daughter was ill, very ill, and he prayed to God to heal his daughter’s ailment instead of taking her to the doctor. He said, “If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God. I am not believing what he said he would do.”
Of course, the Bible does say God will heal. And, we all know that the U.S. Constitution was written based on the Christian Bible for the US to be a Christian nation. So, what’s wrong with putting the Bible above US law? Isn’t that what the Founders intended?
Neumann’s daughter was 11 years old and had diabetes. She could have been easily helped by a doctor. But, his belief in a Bronze Age text brought him to neglect proper, modern treatment. How sad. How stupid. The above is a joke by the way.
Fox Nation Conversations
I just want to point out the type of discussions The Fox Nation incites. Do tell, is this really safe to foster such hateful discussion? Is it okay to feed people’s fear, anger, and delusions with disinformative headlines and misleading information?
Look at how these people talk about the President. Look at how people talk about liberals (which, quite frankly, is anything left of the very far right), homosexuals, blacks, and Muslims. I support free speech, but a News organization ought to have some integrity. Making political, social, national and international affairs into tabloid material of the likes of celebrity gossip is very, very dangerous. Headlines and comments follow Read more…
Bush Aids Possible Prosecution
There is much discussion about Obama leaving the door open for possible prosecution of those who facilitated the ‘enhanced interrogation’ methods.
For starters, you can call it what you want, but it’s still torture. This is how torture is defined by the U.N.:
any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. (U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984)
And this how torture is defined by the United States, and the law against torture.
Now, a lot of people are arguing that it wasn’t torture, or that there should be an exception because it is a matter of national security. That may be fodder for good debate, but let’s get one thing straight: if those of you who believe these methods were not torture, or that there should be an exception, I hope you aren’t also someone who defends “American Values,” because if so, you are in some hot water.
Glenn Beck has outlined the American Principles and Values in the now infamous 912 Project.
The Fifth Principle (of Nine) is as follows:
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
And, to support this principle we have a quote from a founder:
“I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson
To elaborate on this principle, let’s look at our favorite founder, George Washington:
“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” – George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
And….
“‘Treat them [prisoners of war] with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,’ he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause.” -George Washington to his troops regarding prisoners of war
And so, you have it. Torture is not an American Value, it is illegal internationally and in the United States, and Glenn Beck tells it like it is: if you commit a crime or break the law, you accept the punishment. Justice is blind.
Unless, “When the President does it, it is NOT illegal” – Richard Nixon
