Prayer in School

The Story I mention in my previous post, Oi Vey!, reminds me of a piece of art I would like to make called prayer in School.

You see, I have no problem with prayer in school. The problem does lie in the fact that the US is religiously neutral. This means that one can't favour one religion or sect over another.

So, I imagine that prayer in school would have an orthodox Jewish kid davening, a Moslem kneeling toward Mecca, a Hare Krishna, a Catholic saying the rosary, a flagellant, a Pentecostal speaking in tongues, a dervish, a snake handler, a Santeria adherent, and so forth. The ideal picture would have loads of the world's faiths practising in their own unique ways.

It would be quite a raucous and busy scene!

That's how I imagine prayer in School!

Oi vey

It seems an orthodox Jewish teenager's davening on a US Airways plane caused the plane to make an unscheduled landing in Philadelphia.

It seems the flight attendant saw the leather boxes of the kid's tefillin with what she thought were wires coming out of them and flipped out. The Captain didn't have an idea of what was going on. The crew in post 9-11 caution decided to land in Philadelphia to have the suspicious objects investigated.

The NY Daily News Article opened with the line "What schmucks".

Although, were the crew being schmucks? They see something suspicious and its their duty to look out for the safety of their passengers. Yes, a little bit of knowledge might have stopped an embarassing situation.

But the US is a Christian nation.

A Message from the Founders.

Dateline: Philadelphia, PA 13 Jan 2010.

Amazed tourists at Carpenters' Hall were surprised by the sudden appearance of a blue box marked "Police Public Call Box". Even more astounding was the appearance of 56 men in colonial dress from the box along with two men in modern dress and a small white dog.

The first man to speak identified himself as Patrick Henry. He explained that the group had been transported from 1774 to see what would become of their notion of Independence from Britain. Henry was extremely upset at misquotations made by "organisations such as The National Rifle Association and its ilk" regarding the ratification of the Constitution. "These remarks were in regard to the Militia and not private ownership of firearms".

Another man later identified as Samuel Adams said, "Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death. To claim that the Second Amendment gives you such a right is ludicrous. It was all about Standing Armies, we rebelled against standing armies. And those people who identify themselves as Teaparties have no idea what we were doing. I disown them."

All reiterated what the man identified as John Adams who said that "It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws. To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. If firearms prove mischievious to public safety, they should be banned." Adams reiterated the comment about Standing Armies.

All expressed a disgust for the interference of religion in politics. A man identified as George Washington said; "The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens. To say that the United States is a Christian nation over a Moslem or Jewish nation is repugnant: it is a secular society."

The General consensus was that they were much better off under Britain and any thoughts of Independence were mere "wills-o'-the-Wisp". We intended to not have a standing army and the expense encumbant upon such an institution, yet people who claim to hate tyranny support it. They were amazed that modern Americans could agree to be taxed to support what the founders believed was tyranny: "How can one fight a war against Afghanistan, Iraq, or Balnibarbi when they pose no real threat to security?" They expressed shock that the British people had inquiries into these events, yet Americans blindly followed without question.

"The Tories are correct." one said, "True Britons shall never be slaves or submit to tyrrany. What Americans have become is not worthy of our efforts or our blood."

233 Years of Mistakes--It's time to return to England!

I've always thought if we could transport the founding fathers forward in time their reaction would be "fuck it, we're better off as a part of Britain" and just go back home.

If they had any doubts, I could take them to this quaint village that Mudflap Bubbas Found! I'm sure that would persuade them of the error of their ways far more effectively than a nuclear strike on Lexington and Concord ever would.

Why, because most of them would be appalled at how the US has turned out. The fact that the Constitution has been perverted so that something like the Second Amendment which was to ensure a Swiss style military has become a farce with the out of control military and people yammering about gun rights. Add in the fools who say this country was founded as a Christian nation.

Somebody should tell these people about Congregation Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia. Does Haym Solomon sound very Christian to you??? He was a prime financier of the American side during the American Revolutionary War. Jews have been in the US since the mid-17th Century with Jews playing a key role in the Revolution.

How would they feel to learn that Britain had a Jewish Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli (nevermind he converted to Christianity, there's always hope), whereas it was a tough road to get a Catholic as US President! Would the Jewish "patriots" change their support to England if they saw people who say this country is a Christian nation?

We could get into the reaction to Shays' Rebellion and how "Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power". The problem is that by making a break from Britain in the way they did, they created a very bad precedent. Even though the Constitution was written to clarify the situation, there are still some who believe in the insurrection theory despite its not having a constitutional basis.

Break from England, it's a very bad idea!

We can get into the misunderstanding of history presented by the "tea party" crowd. Whatever the fuck it is that they believe. I know it doesn't have anything to do with clotted cream and scones.

An even more interesting point is that the American rebels saw themselves as British and were demanding that they be properly treated as British Citizens. They wanted a voice in the taxation policies. The cry wasn't "No taxation", but "No Taxation without Representation". The phrase captures a sentiment central to the cause of the English Civil War, as articulated by John Hampden who said “what an English King has no right to demand, an English subject has a right to refuse” in the Ship money case. The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. The Colonials felt that they were deprived of this right since they had no direct representation in the British Parliament.

When people who frame themselves as patriots knock Britain, they should remember that the founders considered themselves to be British Subjects. The question would be would the founders if they were alive today feel more at home in the United States or in the United Kingdom?

I think they would be much more inclined toward England than Washington: and definitely frightened by some places in the hinterlands of the US. I've heard it said that the "patriots/rebels" had the better slogans, but the tories had much stronger arguments for remaining with Britain. Time has proven that the Tories were correct and that rebellion was a foolish choice.

England v. the US

OK, my post here is about religious establishment: a major point in my blogs. England has a state religion, the Anglican Church (and Scotland has the Church of Scotland).

The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids the U.S. federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches. That means that the US is a Secular State. A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion.

The US Constitutional provisions providing for a Secular State are pretty clear cut as I point out in my post: Why do yanks forget this one when they talk about religious establishment???. A State religion is forbidden explicitly under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as implicitly in Article VI of the same document.

Another point, why bother breaking from Britain if the US wanted to remain a "Christian Nation"? I mean the UK has its state religion. Wouldn't that system work well for the Colonies?

The problem is that there are fringe loonies who want to turn the US into a Christian nation despite what the Constitution says.

On the other hand, the UK has a State relgion and will push it down your throat at pretty much at every opportunity (says he who is enjoying Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch's A History of Christianity). And even though I tend to ignore most things religious, I notice that there is an attempt at understanding between Britains Christians and other religions in the UK. For example, Philip Leacock's film Hand in Hand about a Christian boy and a little Jewish girl who become friends despite the prejudice that surrounds them sticks in my mind from when I was a kid.

Currently, Britain is trying to understand its Muslim citizens and make sure they don't feel marginalised. That may be something which is easier said than done. However, what brought this post about from simmering in my brain was that Kurbaan's song Shukraan Allah (Thank you, Allah/God) just made number 1 in the BBC Asian Network Charts! Yeah, that's not Number 1 in the National Charts, but its a start.

One thing that Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch's A History of Christianity pointed out was that Islam and Christianity (and I would add in Judaism) have quite a bit of similarities. The US, as a Secular Society should would on appreciating the religions other than protestant Christianity that are practised by its citizens.

Otherwise, why should it have bothered to have broken from England?

A History of Christianity

BBC iPlayer is the thing! I just started watching Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch's A History of Christianity. It isn't your usual history of Christianity since he digs into things such as the Egyptian and Ethiopian Coptic, Syriac, and other Oriental Orthodox Churches. The most interesting of these Churches was the Orthodox Church of the East which was headquartered in Baghdad!

Professor MacCulloch posits that the true origins of Christianity lie further east than Constantinople, and that at one point Christianity was poised to triumph in Asia, maybe even in China. He has this theory that the headquarters of Christianity may well have been Baghdad not Rome, and if that had happened then western Christianity would have been very different.

The next episodes deal with the rise of Rome, The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Reformation, and the concept of scepticism in Christianity with one more episode to be announced. This has real potential to get you thinking!

The interesting thing is that Professor MacCulloch points out that Christianity is hardly monolithic in its nature, which most people neglect. This is especially true for those who wish to establish "Chritianity" as a state religion. Which "Christianity" are you proposing to be the State religion: Catholic? Pentacostal? Some of the varied forms of Orthodox Churches? Protestantism is hardly monolithic as well going from High Church Anglican (Episcopal) to Fundamentalist Bible Churches. The website has a neat little accompanying piece in league with the Open University called Defining Christianity.

I mean some people can't agree about Christmas! Is it Pagan or religious?

Anyway, this is an interesting series that looks at the History of the Church from a totally different point of view. I am taking the the "What type of Christian are you" Survey as a lark. It actually isn't easy.


My written responses were that "being a Christian means that you see salvation as coming from Jesus Christ" and I have "difficulty in believing that Christ is the road to Salvation". I would be a Christian if the religion was that discussed by Jesus of Montreal, one of my favourite all time films.

So, go out there and get another take on Christianity!

Why do yanks forget this one when they talk about religious establishment???

Article Six of the United States Constitution:

no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Why is this in the Constitution if this is a Christian nation?

Also, why is this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

in the the Constitution as well if this is a Christian nation?

I think that is pretty clear that the US is supposed to be religiously neutral. How can there be people like these?

The US is supposed to be secular. Got that?

More US Christmas

Did you know that Christmas wasn't a federal holiday in the US until 1870? Yes, Congress was in session on December 25, 1789, the first Christmas under America's new constitution!

Strange as this may sound, Protestant Christians such as the Pilgrims, Puritans, Congregationalists, Quakers, Baptists, and Presbyterians did not celebrate Christmas. Some Christian sects still do not recognise Christmas as being Christian, such as Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses. Protestant Christians in New England during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and early nineteenth centuries knew that the festivities, traditions, and trappings of Christmas were simply pagan celebrations covered with a Christian veneer. In addition, they were all too familiar with the Saturnalian misrule, disorder, and revelry associated with the mid-winter festivities and wanted to suppress it.

The problem is that Christians have been trying to co-opt the holiday since the Christmas was established early in the fourth century. This was done to Christianise pagan mid-winter celebrations associated with the Saturnalia and birthday of Sol Invictus – the Sun god. But it didn’t end there! As Christianity spread into northern Europe, elements of the twelve day Scandinavian Yule festival to the god Thor and various other practices of the Germanic pagans were also incorporated into Christmas-time celebrations by the Roman Church.

"All of the incorporation of pagan traditions was done contrary to God’s clear instructions in Deuteronomy 12: 28-32, Jeremiah 10: 1-3, and Matthew 15: 3, 8-9."

Some people forget that the First Amendment states that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

So, it seems a bit silly that Christmas was made a holiday, but I have said before that Christmas has 12 days and Hanukkah has 8 days--Why not combine the holidays and take the entire month of December off?

That's the American way!

The New Model Army?

The New Model Army of Great Britain was formed in 1645 by Oliver Cromwell's Parliamentarians in the English Civil War, and disbanded in 1660 after the Restoration. It was raised partly from among veteran soldiers who already had deeply-held Puritan religious convictions, and partly from conscripts who brought with them many commonly-held beliefs about religion or society.

I am amazed that there are organisations that try to convert those serving in the US Military to Christian Fundamentalism to make it a New Model Army.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has a history of religious freedom in the US military. Not to mention I've blogged that The First Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution provide for religious freedom.

Mikey Weinstein, a retired officer and activist for religious freedom in the military, published this communication from the wife of an American Muslim serving in the military:

…I wanted to let you know what life has been like for myself, being an American-Muslim military spouse, over the last few days here at (military installation withheld), since the Ft. Hood incident. When I first learned of this, I was sitting in the PX food court with my best friend whose immediate reaction was, “ No offense to you, but Muslims shouldn’t even be allowed in the U.S. Army”. Wow, this was from my best friend here! I have heard this and similar sentiments repeatedly from various “friends”, as well as people insisting it’s really a terror plot.

Since this happening, my Muslim husband, who is deployed to Afghanistan, has been put on duty to build a chapel on his base, as well as being told not to associate with the Afghan nationals that work there. I went shopping at the commissary and had people mumbling under their breath but loud enough to ensure that I could hear, things like, “get out of our country”, “go back to your country”, “ F-ing Muslims”, “G-Damn Muslims,” and several other expletives you can insert there. Now people don’t just stare at you when they see you go by wearing hijab, they glare. Last time I checked, I was born in this country, this is my country, and my husband is serving it and continues to serve it despite the harassment and racism he encounters. He proudly serves despite the fact that our family pays a higher price for it than many others.

I know that The United Kingdon has a state sanctioned Church, but how can the US condone intlerance in its military? And despite the state religion, The United Kingdom has worked to encourage diversity and understanding in recent years.

The first recorded Englishman to become a Muslim was John Nelson, who converted to Islam at some point in the 16th Century. In the 18th and 19th Centuries there were a number of converts to Islam amongst the English upper classes, including Edward Montagu, son of the ambassador to Turkey.

The first large group of Muslims in Britain arrived about 300 years ago. They were sailors recruited in India to work for the East India Company, and so it's not surprising that the first Muslim communities were found in port towns. Islam was not recognised until the Trinitarian Act in 1812, though Muslims were present prior to this. Today Islam is the second largest religion in the UK with recent estimates suggesting a Muslim population as high as 2.4 million, in part due to considerable immigration to the UK from its former colonies.

My question is why is the US so far behind the UK in recognising Islam? This is especially true considering the Treat of Tripoli I mentioned in my previous post.

I can take some guesses as to why the US demonises Islam, but none of those reasons would be valid ones for such an action.

Religious freedom takes on an additional importance in the current international environment, where religious motivations are an increasing rationale for waging conflict. At a time when the United States is encouraging greater freedom in Muslim nations, it is imperative upon America to show by example that religious pluralism is a viable and preferred option. Any sign of hypocrisy in United States policy, official or otherwise, toward the free exercise of religion within the military makes it more difficult to convince others to follow its example.

Muslim Backlash in the USA?

Why should the vast majority of peaceful people suffer from one insane person's actions?

I have a hard time understanding how some people in the US, in particular the religious right, can be religiously intolerant. The religious right of the founders' time were the ones who wanted religious neutrality from the Government.

I have a problem with people like the one who wrote in the Guestbook at ane exhibit on Jewish Soldiers in the Civil War at Ford's Theatre:
"You can't be a good American unless you are Christian."

I had to respond: "Sorry, but the United States is supposed to be religiously neutral. It doesn't matter what religion a person is, they can be a good American."

I found Naveed Ali Shah's blog when I was trying to learn what went down at Fort Hood. He's a public affairs specialist in the Army who has been deployed for the past 4 months. He is stationed stateside at Fort hood and his wife and child are there now. I watch his blog to see what is going on from a Soldier's point of view.

General George Casey said that “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

People need to understand that this was the action of one man and that Islam is one of the world's major religions and is the predominant religion in much of Africa, the Middle East and major parts of Asia. But muslims can come from anywhere. Americans have the misconception that all Muslims are Arabs and that all Arabs are Muslims. In fact, less than 20 percent of the Muslims in the world are Arab, and all Arab countries have populations that believe in other religions. The nation with the world's largest Islamic population is Indonesia -- 88 percent of its 280 million people are Muslims.

In the United States, Islam is the fastest growing religion, a trend fueled mostly by immigration. There are 5 million to 7 million Muslims in the United States. They make up between 10,000 and 20,000 members of the American military.

The word Islam is a homograph, having multiple meanings, and a triliteral of the word salaam, which directly translates as peace. Other meanings include submission, or the total surrender of oneself to God.

But some people prefer ignorance to the light.

Another muslim soldier, Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, moved Colin Powell to say:

It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way.

The problem is that The American Family Association, a right wing Christian group is calling for no more Muslims in the military. I'd like to think that groups of this sort don't have much sway, but...

The problem is that the US is supposed to be religiously neutral. Article VI of the Constitution states that: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

To prevent Muslims from Serivng in the US forces is unconstitutional. Moreover, we have to remember this from the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Somehow that sentiment has been lost with the passing of time, which is a shame since the US should not demonise 1/5 the world's population.

I realise that the next passage was written by George Washington about the Jews, but it applies to all religions

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

President John Tyler wrote in an 1843 letter:

"The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent -- that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mohammedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma, if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions."

Ultimately, we must keep in mind what Army Chaplain (Capt.) Abdul-Rasheed Muhammad said regarding the need for understanding that their fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen who are Muslim are just like they are non-muslims. "It's important for all of us to see ourselves as coming from the same origin," he said. "It's too easy for people to get off on what's different.

"People have a way of just being people," he continued. "That nature God has already put into us. There's not one Polish nature or Italian nature or Muslim nature or Christian nature. It's just human nature. When people get to the essence of what makes us who we are, then that's what binds us together.

"The Koran says that God created us different nations and tribes that we may come to know each other, not that we should hate or despise each other."

Roe and Heller

Very little of the criticism this page receives addresses the most valid point of criticism which is how can I be upset about DC v. Heller, but not Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)?

There is a simple non-legal answer which is that the most blatant form of tyranny is when a government interferes with a woman's personal choice to have a child. This is a matter between a woman, her doctor, and her significant other with no place for government interference.

I am amazed at how many people want "gun rights" and freedom from government interference, yet balk at abortion. Also, it is amazing that people can call themselves "pro-life", yet have no problem with shooting and killing someone. Or even capital punishment.

I mentioned use-benefit analysis in another post and personally, I find abortion to be far more of a right to be protected than some illusory "gun right".

That said, I have several legal grounds to dislike Heller.

The first is that it is poorly written and does not stand scrutiny. Anyone who has read my posts can see that there are multiple lines of attack of this POS written by a committee.

Secondly, Scalia has had to violate everything he claims to believe in regarding judicial practise. The most egregious of these being that Scalia's dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) acknowledged that abortion rights are of "great importance to many women", but asserted that it is not a liberty protected by the Constitution, because the Constitution does not mention it!

In fact, reading Planned Parenthood v. Casey makes me even more curious as to how Scalia could deign to find a right of self-defence in the Second Amendment.

Scalia does everything that he expresses disgust in in his Planned Parenthood dissent.

The issue is whether it is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the "concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Ibid. Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected--because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed.

Roe v. Wade on the other hand, has some legal basis to support it. The Supreme Court rested its conclusions in Roe on a previously recognized constitutional right to privacy emanating from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Blackmun said that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

I am of the school that the decision is correct, but for the wrong reason. The First Amendment States that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I extend this right to include exercising personal beliefs concerning the beginning of life. The morality of abortion is grounded in the precise belief of the nature of the fetus in Christianity, Judaism, Humanism as well as other religions and ethical systems,. There is a general consensus that when the foetus becomes a human person, then abortions should be severely limited. The question is when does life begin? But that is an ethical decision. Most would confine abortions at the stage when the foetus is viable to situations that threaten the life of the pregnant woman; a very few would eliminate access to abortions totally. The problem that generates so much controversy is that no consensus exists in society over the point, between conception and birth, when personhood begins.

Jewish beliefs and practice concerning abortion do not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:
--The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only."
--Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.
--Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.
--With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.
--"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law."

Islam allows for abortion in cases where the mother's life is threatened.

Additionally, while the "right to an abortion" may not be specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is a personal choice relating to health, personal finances, beliefs and other issues that government has no right to intrude upon.

As I said in my use-benefit analysis post, there are some things which are beneficial to society, of which prevention of unwanted children is one.

At this point, I have to reiterate another point I have made in my posts, that the Heller decision did not invalidate gun control laws. The problem is that Scalia did not give any idea of the scope of his new right.

The problem is that there are loads of knee-jerk RKBA people out there who follow rather than think. They are told that there is an individual right enshrined in this decision and then say this is about time. They do not analyse what has been written or think about the implications.

Next post in this series, Wedge issues.

More Blackstone silliness!

I have to admit to musing on the fact that using Blackstone as US Constitutional authority leads to some very wrong results: especially for Catholics.

One needs to remember that the Test Acts, as well as anti-Catholic sentiment, were still going strong in Britain and the United States during the Revolutionary and Constitutional drafting periods. One of the Test Acts is titled An Act for preventing Dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants', Charles II, 1672, Statutes of the Realm: volume 5: 1628-80 (1819), pp. 782-85

Get the picture?

As I mentioned in my previous post, John Jay, the first chief justice of the US Supreme Court urged the New York Legislature to require office-holders to renounce foreign authorities "in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil." That means you mackeral snappers need to renounce popery and put your true allegiance in the US Constitution.

Love it or burn at the stake.

I believe they were still chopping off heads and sticking them on poles as punishment for treason in Britain around this time. I am not sure about hanging, drawing, and quartering. Whatever the state of capital punishment at the time, the English Criminal law at the time of the adoption of the constitution was called the Bloody Code because a large number of crimes were punishable by execution. Transportation to the North American colonies, which went on to become the United States, and Australia after US independence, was a frequent alternative to the death penalty.

One reason we need a space program is so that we can shoot criminals into space.

It is a melancholy truth, that among the variety of actions which men are daily liable to commit, no less than an hundred and sixty have been declared by Act of Parliament to be felonious without benefit of clergy; or, in other words, to be worthy of instant death — William Blackstone

I predict that Scalia's last opinion be that by using Blackstone as an authority and no less than the words of the First US Chief Justice, the Article VI language that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" is unconstitutional.

Scalia would then order that all US Catholics would be burned at the Stake on the Captiol Mall on the Fourth of July.

I mean wouldn't that be original intent?

(Note: I should write for the Onion: Scalia writes opinion advocating burning Catholics at the Stake

More Blackstone

I hinted at deference to the legislature in my prior Blackstone post which leads to some interesting knowledge.

First off:

The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law.

Section The Second, Of The Nature Of Laws In General

So, one needs to defer to the intent of the legislators, not only the text. Also, if a law is within the spirit of the legislation, or not covered by the legislation, then it is presumed constutional.

3. As to the subject-matter, words are always to be understood as having a regard thereto; for that is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, and all his expressions directed to that end. Thus, when a law of our Edward III. forbids all ecclesiastical persons to purchase provisions at Rome, it might seem to prohibit the buying of grain and other victuals; but when we consider that the statute was made to repress the usurpations of the papal see, and that the nominations to benefices by the pope were called provisions, we shall see that the restraint is intended to be laid upon such provisions only.

4. As to the effects and consequence, the rule is, that where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received sense of them. Therefore the Bolognian law, mentioned by Puffendorf, which enacted "that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity," was held after a long debate not to extend to the surgeon, who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street with a fit.

In other words, one cannot read into a law what one wants, which Scalia did. One cannot take popular meanings and interpretations which have no legal basis and use them as law: especially in the face of prior judicial precedent. Unfortunately, Scalia has shown that he is ignorant of the meaning and history of the Second Amendment. I use this in the proper term as ignorance can mean that one chooses not to take notice of something as in:

ignorance XIII. — (O)F. — L. ignōrantia, f. prp. of ignōrāre not to know, misunderstand, disregard, rel. to ignārus unaware; see -ANCE.
So ignorant XIV. ignore †not to know XVII; (of a grand jury) reject (a bill); refuse to take notice of XIX. — (O)F. ignorer or L. ignōrāre.

In fact, given Scalia's prejudices in this case, I am amazed that he did not recuse himself. It is obvious that his own opinions clouded his decision and removed them from the law. In fact, "RKBA" commentators were hopeful that Scalia would write the opinion given his known bias for this theory.

I was going to use this post to say that the judge needed to think of the consequences of his decision, but it is obvious that Scalia had only one intent and that was to give official sanction to a lie. It has burdened the Constitution with unwanted and unnecessary baggage even if it should be overturned by a decision which is based in reality.

Another point I wanted to make about reliance upon Blackstone was that the text he was commenting upon was this:

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

I find it amusing that the mackeral snappers on the SCOTUS should hook their decision upon this text. Even more humourous is that the author of the Heller decision is a devout papist (or so he claims).

By what means does he presume that he is covered by this text?

If he is truly an "Originalist" than he must surely know the anti-Catholic sentiment in the English speaking world at the time of the adoption of the Constutition!

The "Second Amendment Scholar" came out with some mention of the Gordon Riots which have no meaning to the Second Amendment, but do show anti-Catholic sentiment in England and the United States at this time.

John Highham described anti-Catholicism as "the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history". Anti-Catholicism which was prominent in the United Kingdom was exported to the United States. Two types of anti-Catholic rhetoric existed in colonial society. The first, derived from the heritage of the Protestant Reformation and the religious wars of the sixteenth century, consisted of the "Anti-Christ" and the "Whore of Babylon" variety and dominated Anti-Catholic thought until the late seventeenth century. The second was a more secular variety which focused on the supposed intrigue of the Catholics intent on extending medieval despotism worldwide. Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. characterized prejudice against the Catholics as "the deepest bias in the history of the American people" and conservative Peter Viereck once commented that "Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals."

William Blackstone shared the general Anti-Catholic prejudices of his age and millieu. As discussed in more detail in the article on Anti-Catholicism, his Commentaries summarized his attitude toward Roman Catholics as follows:

As to papists, what has been said of the Protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of reliques and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects.

— Bl. Comm. IV, c.4 ss. iii.2, p. *54

I find it amusing that someone who is an Originalist should not only bastardise, modernise, and debase that which he claims fidelity, but I find it even more amusing that he should do so with such a text which is obviously as dated, if not more so, than the one he has baselessly altered.

Some of America's Founding Fathers had anti-clerical beliefs. For example, in 1788, John Jay urged the New York Legislature to require office-holders to renounce foreign authorities "in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil." Thomas Jefferson wrote: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government," and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

Although, perhaps Scalia is showing his fidelity to the founders' and Blackstone's sentiments toward Catholics and being faithful to another master in deceit to the one he has taken an oath of fidelity.

Again, using Blackstone as an "Authority" is a minefield unless your intent is to destroy the Constitution.

I'll take my religious fanatic extra crispy!

The religious right needs to remember that the First Amendment was written to provide us from government interference in religious affairs. In fact, the United States is supposed to be religiously neutral.

Unfortunately, countries such as Britain with an official church show a much better example of religious tolerance than the religiously neutral United States. Somehow the belief that this is a Christian nation has become popular.

And given the tendency of Justice Robert's Supreme Court's to neglect inconvenient language in the constitution, we may be able to kill Catholics and burn protestants.

Nothing like a nice religious war.

Musing on the religious right

There are three constituencies in the US which do not represent the American public, yet have more power than they should: the Israel Lobby, the RKBA crowd, and the religious right. Despite the talk of democracy, and the Constitution, these three groups are the most open in running the American political scene. I could add the Oil Companies in here as well, but they aren't as vocal or counterproductive to US interests as these three special interest groups.

I said in an earlier blog that I thought Mike Huckabee would be the Republican nominee, which has proven to be wrong. My reasoning was that the religious right appears to be a significant factor in US politics. The real reason may be much simpler in that most citizens of the US are pretty apathetic with the exception of these three groups. The Average American is pretty much fat, dumb, and happy with loads of debt and kept in isolation by too much television which is pretty much crap. To quote Bruce Springsteen, whose music I hate, but has bang on politics: "500 channels and nothing's on". Loads of ESPN rubbish. Bread and circuses for the plebians.

Somehow, the religious right's message is fading away, but I am not sure about their influence. These groups are pretty good at subverting the Constitution. Article VI says that no religious test should be applied, but woe upon Mitt Romney for belonging to a "Cult" (see Mitt Romney post). I'd hate to think about a Jew, or, worse, an ATHEIST running for office.

Fortunately, the Republicans are just that and not democratic, or the squeaky wheel crowd might be fielding Mike Huckabee as a presidential candidate. I'm not sure Huckabee is out of it yet, as he could be in line for being veep. That would be the true test of whether the religious right has any power.

But, it's people like my sister in law, who was born Jewish, yet supports the republicans out of fear of things like "socialised medicine". She is less afraid of the religious crowd and voting with her purse. That is the only reason the religious right has appeared to have so much sway. "Conservatives" believe that it could never happen here, forgetting the lesson of Adolph Hitler, who was democratically elected by people who were more afraid of Communism than Hitler's anti-semitism.

The religious right and RKBA crowd work on the politics of fear. Fear that gays will erode the institution of marriage, destroying the family. On the other hand, what are they doing about the high rate of divorce? Isn't that eroding family values? There is this myth of a golden era of the church, the family, hardy individuals, and other things which make the US feel good about itself. Never mind Ben Franklin had a bastard son and Thomas Jefferson diddled his slave.

The problem is that the fear mongers are the ones we should be afraid of, as they are taking us farther and farther from a safe world. FDR said that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". The world has become a scarier and scarier place under the right wing. We have lost the Communist bogyman who was keeping things safe in Eastern Europe under Bush Senior and lost a Bogyman who kept Iraq under control. Would 9-11 have happened if the Communists were still there to keep a reign on the Islamic world, and we hadn't given aid to the Mujahadeen who later became Al-Queda?

The problem is that the Genii is out of the bottle due to Americans not thinking and letting the special interests control us. Better yet, maybe our leaders will realise that these groups are not representative of the Ameican people and stop pandering to them.

Mitt Romney: Mormonism and the religious right

I have to admit it is humourous to me to hear Mitt Romney being accused of not being "Christian" since he is a Mormon. I have had a thing for Mormonism since I was a youth and have to admit more knowledge than the average person about this faith. The cabinet d'avocats we were associated when I lived in Belgium represented the Mormons.

An anecdote from that period is that a couple of Mormon missionaries were arrested by the Belgian police since the Police weren't sure what exactly Mormon missionaries did. Of course, this was well before the film "Orgazmo" was released (sorry, I had to put that in). Anyway, Belgian law allows for the police to arrest someone for 48 hours and hold them just to check them out. The Mormons were fed a baguette and a litre of coffee every 4 hours. Something which doesn't happen in the USA. These poor buggers are suffering since they can't drink coffee and don't understand why the police can just pull them off the street for no reason.

But Mormonism is the most American of religions.

They see the United States as the promised land and the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as divinely inspired. Of course, that is where I find fault in their faith as a true tory, but that is a total digression.

And, of course, Mormons believe in Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, there are evangelicals out there who believe Mormonism is a cult. See http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.sullivan1.html. However, I am going to quote that article here:

The first time I ever heard about Mormons was in fifth grade, sitting in a basement classroom of my Baptist church, watching a filmstrip about cults. Our Sunday school class was covering a special month-long unit on false religions; in the mail-order curriculum, Mormonism came somewhere between devil worshippers and Jim Jones. Although most of the particulars are lost to me now, one of the images remains in my mind: a cartoon of human figures floating in outer space (an apparent reference to the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression") that appeared on the screen next to our pull-down map of Israel. Even at age 10, the take-away message was clear. Mormons were not like us, they were not Christian.

Evangelical opinions about the LDS Church haven't changed so much since I watched that filmstrip more than 20 years ago. In 2004, Mormons were specifically excluded from participation in the National Day of Prayer organized by Shirley Dobson (wife of James Dobson, leader of the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family) because their theology was found to be incompatible with Christian beliefs.

Mormons believe that they are the fully realized strain of Christianity--hence the "latter-day saints." They acknowledge extra-biblical works of scripture (such as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants), follow a series of prophets who claim to have received divine revelations, and teach that God inhabits an actual physical body. This is all blasphemy to evangelicals; they argue that "the Bible explicitly warns against adding to or detracting from its teaching" and refer to the revelations as "realistic deception[s] by the Devil himself."

Evangelical Christians consider Mormonism a threat in a way that Catholicism and even Judaism are not. The LDS Church, they charge, has perverted Christian teachings to create a false religion. As John L. Smith, a Southern Baptist who runs Utah Mission--an organization that tries to convert Mormons--told Christianity Today: "Mormonism is either totally true or totally false. If it's true, every other religion in America is false." To be tolerant of Mormonism is to put evangelical Christianity at risk. And to put a Mormon in the White House would be to place a stamp of approval on that faith.

Southern Baptists have been particularly vocal about labeling the LDS Church a "cult." In 1997, the denomination published a handbook and video, both with the title The Mormon Puzzle: Understanding and Witnessing to Latter-day Saints. More than 45,000 of these kits were distributed in the first year; the following year--in a throwing down of the proselytizing gauntlet--the Southern Baptist Convention held its annual meeting in Salt Lake City. Around the same time, a speaker at the denomination's summit on Mormonism declared that Utah was "a stronghold of Satan." When Richard Mouw, president of the evangelical Fuller Theological Seminary, tried to repair relations with the LDS community by apologizing on behalf of evangelicals during a speech in the Mormon Tabernacle last year, his conservative brethren lashed out. Mouw had no right, they declared in an open letter, to speak for them or apologize for denouncing Mormon "false prophecies and false teachings."

Now, the First Amendment was proposed as a bulwark against government interference with religion, not to establish Christianity, especially fundamentalist Christianity, as a religion. The US Constitution Article VI states that: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Why? Because the Puritans knew that government interference in religion was something to be avoided. Most of the faiths that came to the United States were dissenters in Europe and knew the problems associated with government sanctioned religion. Europe had nearly two centuries of religious war and a millennium of religious persecution to look back upon.

I was at a Jewish CLE class where the Rabbi said something along the lines of even though we may agree with the religious right, we know that we cannot support them. Because we are working toward something which may backfire upon us. So, we cannot impose our beliefs upon others even though we may not believe in abortion, birth control, etcetera.

Mormonism has a long history of persecution by "Christians" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mormonism), which they should not forget. I remember when I was young seeing a memorial to the Mormons who went to Beaver Island to escape persecution while camping in northern Michigan.

I ask my Mormon Brothers and Sisters to remember their past and the persecution by those who called themselves Christians to remember what our religious freedom means. Even if Mormons disagree with positions on abortions, birth control, prayer in school, and so forth, they must remember that others have once persecuted (and still do persecute) them for their beliefs.

We cannot have religious issues blocking our other freedoms and the freedoms of others. We cannot have religion being used as a method for blocking real social legislation by making religion a wedge issue. we must allow for freedom of conscience whether we agree with it or not.

otherwise, we may return to the religious wars our ancestors fled their homelands to escape.