harikari.com

It was in the late 1940s when, as a pre-teen,  I first heard the word “bigotry.”  Washington State had restrictive liquor laws.  No Sunday sales.  You could not carry a drink in a bar.  If you wanted to change tables you had to call for a barmaid (hey, it was 60 years ago) to take your beer to your new location.  Few places had liquor by the drink.  I can remember my folks going to the old Dick Parker’s dance hall in north Seattle where they would set a bottle of liquor under the table, order set-ups from the house and enjoy an evening of dancing to Duke Ellington’s band. 

Well, an initiative was placed on the ballot to liberalize the laws and create a “Class H” license whereby liquor by the drink would be readily available.  Although I was a constant captive to the church’s message that this was the work of Satan I was struck by the theme of the pro-initiative forces who called the church groups bigots, which they defined as “I don’t like it so you can’t have it!”  The initiative passed and some still contend that Satan prevailed.  They have a hard time separating “secular” and “Satan.”

Yesterday we had Huckabee echoing the illustrious Ellen Craswell in his statement to the effect that the Bible trumps the Constitution.  The evangelicals captured the Republican party in Washington a few years back and Craswell was nominated to run against Gary Locke–his good fortune.  She repeatedly proclaimed that she would use the Bible as her guide if there were a conflict with the Constitution.  She was trounced.  Huckabee’s religious belief that the wife should be subservient to the husband should make him a good target down the line. 

One of my favorite defining court rulings was by the California Supreme Court when it ruled that a school board, which had banned a book from its district libraries because “it offended Christian values,” had acted unconstitutionally.  It noted that books could be deemed inappropriate but not on the basis of religious considerations.

All of this is an introduction to the God-O-Meter  Earlier today on MSNBC I viewed an interview about it.  Go to the site and start wondering who the bigots are in this country.

H. L. Mencken noted:  Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority.  The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right  and what is wrong.  All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them.  The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others.  His culture is based on “I am not too sure.” 

It’s too bad that Romney’s “Faith in America” speech is even necessary, but he felt pressured into it and delivered it yesterday.

Here’s what he got right:

Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America’s greatness: our religious liberty.

…I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

“As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

…A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

…Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

…No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith.

…We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.

Anyone familiar with the U.S. Constitution knows all that should go without saying.  We should hear similar statements from all the candidates, not just Romney.  (Are you listening Mr. Huckabee?)

What he got wrong:

“Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are.

…When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God.

…no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

…Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

…Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

The common thread through all those statements is that he excludes “the faithless” as if agnostics and atheists are second-class citizens not worthy of his attention.

Is the religion of an aspiring candidate an issue we should question?  I think not, but obviously many millions think otherwise.  Again, read the Constitution – it’s not an issue.

If he became president he would make a promise to God?  So when it gets right down to it, if God and the citizens of America are in disagreement, who does he serve?

Can a movement of conscience speak to non-religious people?  Is he saying they don’t have consciences?

When this country was formed, it was for the most part made up of Christians and Deists.  Since then, our country has absorbed people from all around the world, and they’ve all brought with them their own religions – what Romney calls a “Symphony of Faith.”  Let’s run with that metaphor for a second.  If everything is in balance, the symphony sounds great.  Occasionally the violins dominate, sometimes the woodwinds, sometimes the brass, sometimes the percussion.  But what if one voice always dominated?  What if all we ever heard were trumpets and trombones at 120 decibels?  That would drive many out of the hall, even some of the concertgoers who also played brass instruments would get sick of it.  So tempering the religious displays in the public square is not necessarily about removing any acknowledgement of God, it’s about balancing it all out so that no one religion dominates.

Oh, and secularism is not a religion.  I can’t believe he even said that.  Maybe he had W read his speech and asked him for suggestions.

And about that “most important question to ask a person of faith.”  He can’t ask an atheist the same question?  Does he think they aren’t qualified to answer it?  Probably not since they don’t fall into the group he refers to as his allies.

It’s not hard to guess how the non-believers will respond to his speech. 

So how will the Christian Republicans respond?  Can they accept a Mormon as their candidate for president?

They should be able to, but I’m betting they won’t.

If you were voting in the Republican primary tomorrow, which candidate would get your vote and why?

“Uh, hello? Rudolph Giuliani. He protected New York City from the terrorists on 9/11 and he’s like the anti-terrorist version of Sean Connery in the Untouchables. The Iraqi people put me in a wheelchair, so now he’ll put one of them in a torture prison.”

via Something Awful

For the following reasons, I don’t think this primary season is going to be easy for Republicans.

1. Romney will implode on the issue of his religion. Proper Xtians don’t like Mormons and Mormons don’t like a Massachusetts Governor who won’t defend their faith — and Mormonism is tough as shit to defend under serious scrutiny.

2. Huckabee, like Romney, will fall under the weight of his faith. He is simply TOO religious.

3. Giuliani has secrets just waiting to find the right mouthpiece.

4. Ron Paul isn’t a republican.

5. Thompson’s a poseur. He’s a great republican, though. Just like Reagan.

6. Tancredo’s a nutjob. Tancredo, before it’s too late… WTF!?!?

7. Hunter is…wait. Who? Actually, if Hunter wins the nom and chooses Fred Thompson as his running mate, I may actually consider voting for “Hunter/Thompson 2008″.

8. McCain. Caucus Republicans love him, but don’t believe in him. Hate him, but respect him. He won’t pander to the Christians, he won’t get tough on terrorists, he did spend 5 years in a Vietnam prison camp, but he ran against Dear Leader 8 years ago, and lost. If he can’t defend his nomination from a draft dodger, how can he defend our country from islamo-fascist militants who want to bomb our malls and poison our small town water towers? However, I think he’s the only one who could kick the Dem nom’s ass in 2008 if he manages to get past the past 6 years of lap-dogging and elbow rubbing.

From Thom Hartmann’s column:

When Columbus first landed on Hispaniola in 1492, virtually the entire island was covered by lush forest. The Taino “Indians” who loved there had an apparently idyllic life prior to Columbus, from the reports left to us by literate members of Columbus’s crew such as Miguel Cuneo.

When Columbus and his crew arrived on their second visit to Hispaniola, however, they took captive about two thousand local villagers who had come out to greet them. Cuneo wrote: “When our caravels… where to leave for Spain, we gathered…one thousand six hundred male and female persons of those Indians, and these we embarked in our caravels on February 17, 1495…For those who remained, we let it be known (to the Spaniards who manned the island’s fort) in the vicinity that anyone who wanted to take some of them could do so, to the amount desired, which was done.”

Cuneo further notes that he himself took a beautiful teenage Carib girl as his personal slave, a gift from Columbus himself, but that when he attempted to have sex with her, she “resisted with all her strength.” So, in his own words, he “thrashed her mercilessly and raped her.”

While Columbus once referred to the Taino Indians as cannibals, a story made up by Columbus – which is to this day still taught in some US schools – to help justify his slaughter and enslavement of these people. He wrote to the Spanish monarchs in 1493: “It is possible, with the name of the Holy Trinity, to sell all the slaves which it is possible to sell…Here there are so many of these slaves, and also brazilwood, that although they are living things they are as good as gold…”

Columbus and his men also used the Taino as sex slaves: it was a common reward for Columbus’ men for him to present them with local women to rape. As he began exporting Taino as slaves to other parts of the world, the sex-slave trade became an important part of the business, as Columbus wrote to a friend in 1500: “A hundred castellanoes (a Spanish coin) are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten (years old) are now in demand.”

There’s more.  Hartmann also writes briefly about the “Pequot War of 1636.” 

I remember reading about this war in a college American Literature class and have never forgotten how the first American settlers praised God for enclosing the “savages” in a small area so that they could kill and burn them easily.

The quote from William Bradford’s journal:  “It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave praise thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”

What a country.

My conservative friends manage to keep me abreast of all the scurrilous right-wing emails that are fraught with lies, deception and stupidity.  A new one is making the rounds complaining about the new president dollars that the mint has just issued. 

The allegation is that “In God We Trust” has been left off this new coin: “By omitting these words, our politically correct, secularist leaders made a conscientious decision that either 1) God does not exist, 2) that God exists but can no longer be trusted.”

The email goes on to say, “I am personally offended and fed up with the denigration of God and Christianity in my country.  I am certain George Washington would never have agreed to his picture on the coin if it in any way diminished faith in God.”

Setting aside for the moment the fact that the writer is abysmally ignorant of Washington’s religious beliefs, the real kicker is that the inscription is on the coin.  In a departure from tradition – something conservatives are loathe to tolerate – the inscription is on the outside edge of the coin and not on the obverse or reverse.  The date, “E Pluribus Unum,” and the mint mark are also there.  (Visit the U.S. Mint’s page devoted to the new dollar to see all of the markings in great detail.)

To send such a message the writer had to be: 1) dull-witted; 2) deliberately lying, or 3) non compos mentis – not that those terms are exclusive nor infrequent attributes of the writers of right-wing screed.

Watch for this one and, if the sender has violated the protocols of email and revealed all recipients, which they seem inclined to do, reply to all of the recipients with a dose of the truth.  I get interesting responses from the “reeducated.”

Such tomfoolery would be out of place in Sweden, which trails only Estonia in the percentage of the population that doesn’t believe in God.

(I should note that it is possible that the writer obtained some of the early issues that missed the edge printing but that error was publicized widely and the defective coins have become collector’s items.  I doubt that such is the case with this author of the off-the-wall criticism that I received.)

 - The Old Viking

What does that mean?  Is that “blow” like in “You know how to whistle don’t you”  Just put your lips together and blow?” Or is that “blow” as in “cocaine,” or is it blow like “fellate?”  Take your pick.

Nonsense?  Yes…  but not if you are a high school student.  Those words may be interpreted by an authority figure as loaded words that advocate something prohibited in a school policy.

Kind of like “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”  Does that phrase promote marijuana use?  Promote Christianity?  Nonsense?  definitely…  Is it likely to promote some kind of harm or disturbance that the government wishes to avoid?  Not likely.  Was it disruptive?  Not until the principle demanded that the students take it down.

But that didn’t stop the Supreme Court from ruling 5-4 against Joseph Frederick, the one student holding the banner that refused the principal’s order. Principal Morse wanted it down because she interpreted it to promote drug use, and she believed that schools should be able to enforce their zero-tolerance drug policies.  Okay, I’ll give them that authority on school grounds and at school functions.  But holding up an obliquely worded message designed to attract television cameras at an Olympic Torch Relay event on non-school property?  You’ve got to be kidding me.  5-4?  That’s a 9-0 vote in favor of a citizen’s right to free speech in any modern democracy.

Was it more offensive because it said “4 Jesus?”  Depends on what you believe.  Roberts did not mention it in his majority opinion.  But I have to think that if Hendrickson’s banner read “Bong Hits 4 Buddha” it would not have received much attention and a legal case, if any, would not have progressed to the Supreme Court.

If you are interested, you can read the whole Supreme Court opinion here.  I did, and I found that Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion (starting at page 45) made far more sense than Roberts’s majority opinion.

So drugs are bad, especially when mixed with Christianity.  What about sex?  Last I heard, the schools weren’t enforcing a zero-tolerance-for-sex rule and they weren’t testing kids to make sure they were virgins.  So could a principal prohibit students from hoisting a nonsensical banner mixing sexual innuendo during a similar event?

Someday we may find out.

So, what I suggest is that we further test the boundaries of student speech.  If you know any high school students, feel free to encourage them to see how far they can go with any of the following ambiguous messages:

Shoot Up 4 Shiva

Pipe Licks 4 Mary

Light up 4 Allah

Huff 4 Hosanahs

Eat Tabs 4 Yahweh

Mainline 4 Mwari

Cracking 4 Christ

Jello Shots 4 Jehovah

Sloppy Seconds 4 Agnostics

Adrenachrome 4 Atheists

The Atlantic Monthly article on European and American shifts in secularism/religion is a good history and a good analysis.  In the long haul I think that scepticism will probably carry the day but a lot of new “crusades” will be undertaken – but the banners will be only symbolic because they serve a political and economic purpose to rally the troops and raise the funds for maintaining/replacing political structures.

Speaking of stupid political structures…

The stupidity and arrogance of Homeland Security, particularly as it plays out in airport security is beyond belief.  On 60 Minutes this past Sunday the TSA said that the most dangerous players are not on the list because they don’t want to tip people off that they know who they are but, if your name is Robert Johnson, just accept the inconvenience of being searched every time you try to board–they had a room full of Robert Johnsons who related their experiences. 

That reminded me of the time I was challenged trying to take too much booze into California and, in the interrogation room, I asked to see their written guidelines.  When they asked why, I–big mistake–pulled out my ACLU card and said, “Because they tell me that I have some rights.”  He said that, when I was at the border, I had no rights and that they could even search my body cavities to which I replied, “Oooh, will you?” with a smile.  My wife cringed.  The upshot was that they let me leave with my booze but I couldn’t bring it into California.  It was a case of the border police enforcing a California law, not a federal law which would have allowed the gallon of rum that I was carrying.  From then on, I just hid it in a bag of charcoal in my car figuring that at least they would get dirty retrieving it.

Here are some excerpts from an article by Ross Douthat in the newest Atlantic Monthly about the rise of religion in Europe and the rise of secularism in America.

Nothing divides the United States from Europe like religion. America has its public piety and its multitude of thriving sects, Europe has its official secularism and its empty, museum-piece churches. Ninety percent of Americans say they believe in God, while only about 60 percent of Britons, French, and Germans say the same. American politics is riven by faith-based disputes that barely exist across the Atlantic, while European debates take place under a canopy of unbelief that’s unimaginable in the United States, where polls show that a Muslim or a homosexual has a better chance of being elected president than an acknowledged atheist.

…

America’s secular turn actually began in the 1990s, though it wasn’t until 2002 that two Berkeley sociologists first noticed it. In a paper in the American Sociological Review, Michael Hout and Claude S. Fischer announced the startling fact that the percentage of Americans who said they had “no religious preference” had doubled in less than 10 years, rising from 7 percent to 14 percent of the population. This unexpected spike wasn’t the result of growing atheism, Hout and Fischer argued; rather, more Americans were distancing themselves from organized religion as “a symbolic statement” against the religious right. If the association of religiosity with political conservatism continued to gain strength, the sociologists suggested, “then liberals’ alienation from organized religion [might] become, as it has in many other nations, institutionalized.”

Five years later, that institutionalization seems to be proceeding. It’s showing up in an increasingly secularized younger generation: A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 20 percent of 18-to-25-year-olds reported no religious affiliation, up from just 11 percent in the late 1980s. …
… Indeed, the America that many secularists seem to desire looks an awful lot like the Europe of today, where politicians who mention God are a rarity, and governments keep a wary eye on “sects” that stray too far outside the mainstream.

Yet the Europe of tomorrow may look more like … the United States, with a politics that’s increasingly shaped by clashes between believers, or between belief and unbelief. Already, the Continent is experiencing a low-grade culture war, created by the collision between the religious zeal of Muslim immigrants and the secular culture that surrounds them. In flash points that range from the murder of the anti-Islamic filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in Holland, to the controversy over the supposedly blasphemous Danish cartoons, to the question of whether to admit Turkey to the EU, secular Europe has found itself in unfamiliar, God-haunted, almost American territory.

…

Religion stirs up the most controversy, a group of Harvard economists recently argued, when roughly half the population is actively religious; conflict ebbs when the devout constitute large majorities or small minorities. The more evenly divided a culture finds itself on the ultimate questions, the more likely politicians are to pursue “strategic extremism” and mobilize one side against the other.

…

America has long avoided this trap by enjoying near-universal piety; Europe, at least lately, has escaped it by cultivating near-universal skepticism. But if the religious gulf between the two continents narrows, the divides within each one are likely to open ever wider, and religious peace turn increasingly to culture war—or worse.

Just what we need… more crusades.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if I ended up spending an eternity in hell with Jerry Falwell because of the glee I’m taking in this man’s demise?

Jerry Falwell collapsed and died today in Virginia at the age of 73.  I can think of no better way to remember this man that was so filled with hatred and disgust for those who did not believe as he did than through some direct quotations.  Here you go…

“I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!”

“The idea that religion and politics don’t mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country”

Actually I think it was Thomas somebody from Virginia that invented that.  Jefferson?  Paine?  probably both…

“Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them”

“AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”

“Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan in America”

Say what?

“If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being”

“The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews”

Hmmm… I’m not born again and I am a member of the ACLU.  I don’t feel like a failure… haven’t gassed or burned any Christians… Perhaps I’m not living up to my potential…

“The Bible is the inerrant … word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc. “

“The whole (global warming) thing is created to destroy America’s free enterprise system and our economic stability”

and of course this famous hate filled rant following 9-11

“…throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad…I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America…I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen.”

What a nice old man Jerry was.  So loving and tolerant… just like Jesus.   Not.

Have a Nice Trip…

Go here to read what his arch-nemesis Barry Lynn had to say upon hearing of his passing.