Speedkill

I don’t think nativity displays on public property are necessarily unconstitutional, provided local governments allow other religious displays. I’m not going to get bent out of shape over it, as long as there’s no preference for one religion over another.

On the other hand, I think it’s a better idea to not have these displays. People should express themselves in their own space. Why do I think this? Because people aren’t generally mature enough to handle multiple religious displays on public property.

Government giving money directly to churches seems like an obviously unconstitutional thing to do. I can’t seem to find any arguments in favor of the behavior, either.

Bozeman’s mentioned USA Today’s story about the ever present controversies over Ten Commandments monuments. Alas, we did not make a pie chart, so we haven’t truly arrived in the USA Today world.

In other news, I wish I’d thought of requesting that the famous quote from the treaty of Tripoli be placed beside the monument here. That would have been entertaining.

The ACLU has filed suit against a Texas school district for offering a certain Bible elective in its schools. The Religious Right is having none of it:

The American Civil Liberties Union is being accused of filing a baseless lawsuit against a Texas public school district that allows Bible elective courses to be taught in two high schools. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of eight parents against the Ector County Independent School District in Odessa, challenging the Bible elective courses.

…

Hiram Sasser is with the Liberty Legal Institute, which is advising the school district. He says the Ector County schools are not doing anything wrong.

“The ACLU and people of that ilk, they just hate the Bible so much that they fundamentally disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court in its suggestion to be able to teach a Bible course in a secular way,” Sasser asserts. “That’s not even good enough for them. They just don’t want the Bible to even go into the schoolhouse gates at all,” he says.

Is that so? Not at all. You see, the Bible course in question is an obvious violation of church-state separation. Here’s a passage from the course material, as quoted in the ACLU brief (go here):

First, it (the gospel of Matthew) clearly establishes that Jesus was the Messiah that was prophesized (sic) throughout the Old Testament. Second, it proves that Jesus was the son of God, whom He claimed to be through living a sinless and perfect life.

There’s more, too. The ACLU brief claims:

Course materials characterize Roman Catholic beliefs in the transformation of communion bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ as “warped” thinking brought on my “mysticism.”

Well, that actually seems correct, but it probably shouldn’t be in a public school class.

So, the ACLU has sued the school, which is explicitly endorsing Protestant dogma in the classroom. Seems obvious to me.

The Chronicle, whose web site’s front page design has taken an turn for the worse recently, reports that the Ten Commandments monument in a local park will stay there:

The controversial Ten Commandments monument will return to public property, the Bozeman City Commission determined Monday night.

The commission voted 4-1 to return the religious statue to Soroptimist Park rather than move it to private property.

Putting the monument on city property does not violate the separation of church and state or the public’s right to religious freedom, the majority of commissioners said.

That’s despite the fact that it’s pretty obviously the same as the case where the Supreme Court ruled such a display was unconstitutional. Lovely.

Numerous citizens, including local pastors, told the commission that the monument should stay because the country was founded on the Ten Commandments and their public display morally and spiritually benefits the city as a whole.

Morally and spiritually benefits the city? So, what, we’d have a rash of crime if the monument was removed? Are we really that stupid? Seriously, I don’t understand the people who feel the need (and that they’re entitled) to have the state endorse their particular dogma.

The commission “shouldn’t be in a rush” to be “politically correct,” Mike Comstock told the commission.

Wow, I didn’t know separation of church and state was nothing but political correctness. I thought it was one of the constitutional principles that makes this country great. Silly me.

One woman said she felt compelled to testify because she needed to “speak out for God” on the issue.

If there’s a god, I’m fairly certain it wouldn’t need to people to speak out on its behalf.

But hey, I’m not the one who knows what God’s position on this issue is.

The Ten Commandments were not just for Christians, Commissioner Kaaren Jacobson said.

“I think the Ten Commandments are a good symbol. … They can be more broadly interpreted,” she said.

“I am the Lord your God” can only be interpreted so many ways. Whether the symbol is “good” or not has nothing to do with it.

That’s really what annoys me about this whole thing. The Ten Commandments in a park is not something I get that angry about. What irritates me is the mind-numbingly stupid arguments people put forth to justify it.

In light of the claims by the supporters of this thing, if anyone in the apartment buildings next to me pisses me off, I’m pointing a strobe light at his or her window. I’ll be claiming that it’s the strobe light of atheism and it’s an expression of my deeply held religious beliefs.

Just so you know.

*cue scary music*

So says the AP.

The ACLU, self-described as an organization committed to protecting rights set forth in the Constitution, has developed a plan for “strategic investment” in Florida, Mississippi, Texas and New Mexico, as well as Montana. About $10 million will be divided among the states in the coming five years, executive Anthony Romero said from New York, where the ACLU is based.

In Montana, a libertarian bent in part of the populace is among the reasons for investing in the state, Romero said. People of a libertarian persuasion are people with whom the ACLU stands a good chance of building alliances based on shared beliefs about issues such as government surveillance and the scope of police powers, he said.

That’s probably accurate to some extent, but let’s face it, the ACLU has been demonized to a startling degree. They’ll face an uphill battle here.

“There is some common ground (with the ACLU) but there also are some vast disagreements,” said Stan Jones of Bozeman, who ran for the U.S. Senate last month as a Libertarian Party candidate and drew 2.6 percent of the vote. Jones said members of his party generally agree with the ACLU that the federal Patriot Act is unconstitutionally far-reaching, but many would disagree with the organization about religious freedom.

You know, I don’t think that’s accurate. Libertarians seem to have a fairly strict view of church-state separation. Obviously the ACLU has a very strict view, but I don’t see a huge gulf there. It still seems like Jones is a fairly unorthodox Libertarian; the fact that he’s against abortion, gay marriage, and believes the ACLU are somehow weak on religious freedom shows me that he’s a pretty conservative Libertarian. But what the hell do I know about Libertarians in this state?

The state organization is getting a pretty solid boost:

The ACLU in New York said that of the $10 million, Montana stands to receive about $1.2 million over a four-year span, with fifth-year funding still to be determined. The Montana budget was about $300,000 last year.

Go check out the Montana ACLU.

Did you know it’s an affront to American culture that a Muslim member of Congress will be sworn in using a copy of the Koran instead of the Bible? Me neither. Apparently a meaningless and insignificant tradition is the very thing holding our society together. Who knew? I like this part of that article:

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” the Nazis’ bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison’s right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

I’ll take issues I don’t care about for $100, Alex. I can’t see why it matters what book you choose to swear an oath on. You’re either going to be honest and uphold the Constitution or you aren’t. Swearing on some book doesn’t enter into it. The people who voted him in are obviously confident enough in his “value system” to put him in a position of power.

In other words, let the racist swear on a copy of Mein Kampf. The problem is that you elected a racist, not what book he gets to swear on.

Jebus, I don’t understand these people.

Since I rarely get a chance to read the Chronicle anymore, I missed the fact that there’s been a Ten Commandments issue (link will die soon, of course) around here:

Installation of the Ten Commandments in a public space, an issue the Bozeman City Commission and city staff have been grappling with for months, was back in the spotlight Monday night.

Two Bozeman residents spoke at the commission meeting against the city’s decision to reinstall a Ten Commandments monument in Soroptimist Park.

I could point out the problems, but they’re expressed pretty well in the article:

“That’s an explicit statement” about the city’s stance on religion, he said.

…

Mayor Jeff Krauss also had misgivings about the situation.

“On my door there is a sign that says, ‘All are welcome here,’” he said. “‘Thou shalt have no God but Jehovah,’ is a hard one for me to get over.”

Getting someone else to pay for putting it in the park, as was mentioned in the article, doesn’t solve the problem.

There’s no need for such a monument and it endorses Christianity and Judaism. It seems pretty clear that it shouldn’t be in a public park.

Agape Press (no surprise) cheerleads for the establishment clause bill I mentioned in my last post.

(AgapePress) – The ACLU calls it an “attack on religious liberty.” But a prominent member from the other side of Congress says it’s the first step in drying up what some call the ACLU’s “cash cow.”

They are referring to the measure known as the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA (H.R. 2679), a bill sponsored by Congressman Jeff Hostettler that eliminates the award of attorney’s fees in Establishment Clause cases, effectively removing the financial threat often used by the American Civil Liberties Union against communities. “Because of PERA,” Hostettler states on his website, “Americans will have the opportunity to fight the systematic agenda of the ACLU and their minions to remove the vestiges of our religious heritage in this nation.”

…

But what about the financial aspect of the legislation? The ACLU says the elimination of attorney’s fees in Establishment Clause cases, for example, would — among other things — deter attorneys from taking cases that allege the government as acted unconstitutionally by applying “illegal religious coercion” in public schools or “blatant discrimination” against particular religions.

Hostettler, understandably, sees things differently. Under PERA, he says, public officials would not have to worry about being able to afford legal defense of their use of the words “under God” in public when the ACLU “comes after them” — and teachers would be able to permit students to “talk about their religious beliefs” knowing that should a lawsuit result, they would be able to defend themselves without facing “financial peril.”

…

Brownback says he is counting on the Senate to pass its version of the bill so communities will be able to demonstrate their faith without the specter of financial threat.

Of course, they don’t actually make an argument against what the ACLU says. Not a big surprise, as I imagine it’s perfectly obvious to them. As you can see from the statements in the excerpt, they see this as keeping the ACLU from inflicting financial damage on people who promote religion through government. They’re taking the negative consequences away from losing cases, which creates an incentive for people who lack an understanding of separation of church and state (or don’t believe in it in the first place) to push their agenda a bit more forcefully. On the flip side, it creates a disincentive for others to challenge any actions by people in such positions of power.

Now, that cuts both ways. It will be harder for everyone to sue and for either side to push an agenda with government backing. Why then does the religious right see this as a positive? It seems that requires a couple of assumptions about the state of separation of church and state. The first is that they have more funding than their opposition. Otherwise, the attorney’s fees restriction would hurt them more, as there would be fewer cases they could reach than for groups like the ACLU and AU. The second is that people who share their views are on balance more common in positions where pushing religion results in lawsuits. School boards and the like, mostly.

I think those assumptions are interesting. Don’t they contradict the claims of persecution made by many on the religious right? If you’re better funded and in better position to control the initial expressions of government sponsored religious views, how persecuted can you be?

In the end, this is essentially an entrenchment of the status quo regarding separation of church and state. Whichever side the current situation leans toward is the side that this bill favors. The religious right thinks government promotion of Christianity is that side. Are they right? I don’t think so, but we may find out rather quickly.