The  ”The Lord is not on Trial Here Today” is a 2011 film about Vashti McCullum and her lawsuit (1948) for separation of church and state in schools.

The Lord is Not On Trial Here Today is a Peabody Award-winning documentary that tells the compelling personal story of Vashti McCollum, and how her efforts to protect her ten year-old son led to one of the most important and landmark First Amendment cases in U.S. Supreme Court history — the case that established the separation of church and state in public schools. The case is little-known by the contemporary American public, yet the McCollum decision continues to have important ramifications for current conflicts over the role of religion in public institutions – from displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings to student-led prayers at public school graduation ceremonies.

A school district decided to teach religion and she did not want her son to attend the “voluntary” class after going to it herself.

In 1940, the Champaign, Illinois public school district instituted a voluntary religion class in its grade schools, something that was being done in school districts across the country. Vashti McCollum initially didn’t allow her oldest son, 10 year old Jim, permission to take the religion class. She believed religion was a personal matter, and not one for the schools, but after persistent begging by Jim, she finally relented. Then she saw the materials being used in the class. “It was indoctrination into the old Christian faith,” she remembered. “So I said never again.”

So Jim sat out the class, but he was the only one in his classroom who didn’t have permission to take the religion class. Not knowing what to do with Jim during the time of religion class, the teacher sat him in a desk in the hall, the same place kids were placed when they were punished. Jim suffered brutal bullying as a result and came home in tears. Vashti McCollum decided that was enough. “Never again,” Mrs. McCollum remembered, still angry, “would he be put in the hall.” So she sued the Champaign school district to put a stop to the religion class, beginning a three-year odyssey that would change American public schools forever.

Of course there was a backlash because forging, love, and tolerance are prime movers and succeed so well in monotheistic religions.

She was called “that awful woman” by her neighbors, and “that atheist mother” by newspapers across the country. Her friends stopped returning phone calls rather than risk speaking with her. She was branded a communist, and the Illinois State Legislature nearly outlawed her and her husband from ever working at the state university again. She received up to 200 letters a day, some of the writers claiming they would pray for her; many wishing for much worse.

This is the classic, perfect example of why voluntary religion in schools is bullshit. Shaming versus guilt more strongly discourages disagreement. Putting him in the hall might as well be the stocks with the rabble throwing old food and stones. You can bet those comparative religion and religion classes that are supposed to teach the debate are all about Christian solidarity and nothing about religion and theology historically or philosophically; how could it when the religion they follow is exclusive and preaches a singular way of living?

She wrote a book about their experience, “One Woman’s Fight.”

“‘One Woman’s Fight,’ as readable as a novel, makes an ideal introduction to the subject of state/church separation. No one reading Vashti’s appealing story is likely to forget this testament to the significance of the Establishment Clause, or the personal toll exacted when the wall of separation is violated at the expense of citizens–especially school children.” – Annie Laurie Gaylor, Freethought Today

You can also read Daniel McCullum’s “The Lord is Not on Trial: the Inside Story on the Supreme Court’s Precedent-Setting McCullum Ruling.”

Mississippi has tried to allow religion in school before, been denied, and resurrected the bill in a new form. Mississippi is currently waiting for their governor to sign a bill into law that will allow “voluntary” religious activities at school.

The Mississippi State Legislature has passed overwhelmingly and sent to Gov. Phil Bryant for his signature S.B. 2633, the Mississippi Student Religious Liberties Act of 2013.  The state Senate passed the bill by avote of 50- 1 last month, and the House yesterday passed it by a vote of 109-6, with 5 not voting, absent or voting present. The bill prohibits public school from discriminating against students or parents on the basis of religious viewpoint or religious expression, including the expression of religious beliefs in homework or classroom assignments. It provides that students may pray, engage in religious activities and religious expression, and organize religious clubs and gatherings before, during and after the school day to the same extent that students may engage in nonreligious activities. It calls for schools to adopt a policy that creates a limited public forum at all events at which students speak publicly, and sets out a Model Policy that meets the statutory requirements. The Model Policy includes provisions that allow students, selected under neutral criteria, to introduce football games and speak at graduation ceremonies without discrimination against religious views they espouse.

Mississippi is evading public space issues by calling prayer before games events as occurring in a limited public forum.

It suggests naming such events as “limited public forums,” choosing students to speak at each. The bill says schools can’t punish students who pray, and sponsors say the aim is to promote such prayer.

Bill Moyers is hosting a free streaming of this movie (Jay Rosenstein production) for another 10 days.

Here is a trailer for the movie.

Jim Newman, bright and well

www.frontiersofreason.com

There’s just too much to write about this week to let it slide and do one topic. Rather than finishing the second part of my Amish Post, joy of joys, and discussing hateful Amish shunning, and the assignment of 15 years to Amish leader Mullet for instigating hate crime in his own religion…

Scientology is in the news twice.

Lawrence Wright has written a great book, so I hear (dear fates of Sisyphus grant me a book review slush fund), debunking Scientology called “Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, & the Prison of belief.” Wright is the 2007 Pulitzer prize winner who wrote “The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11.” which I do have. Scientology, only self labelled “church” for tax-free status. Buy the book, read it, send it to me.

Jenna Miscavige Hill was interviewed for the Huffington post.

“Hill, the niece of church leader David Miscavige and author of Beyond Belief, told HuffPost Live host Ahmed Shihab-Eldin about the oppressive practices of the church, which include forced abortion and abuse.”

You can watch the 34 minute interview here

“It’s not some benign, self-help religion.”

There are no gods, no worship in this religion, only aliens and harm.

>>

Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast announced the resignation of the Faith-Based Initiatives director, uhhh liaison,  Joshua DuBois, a Pentecostal Pastor. He is authoring a book on devotionals he sent to the Prez every day. This office has expanded. DuBois also plans to work with faith-0based organizations in getting funds, from the other side.

Obama’s faith office expanded to 13 federal agencies from when President Bush was in office. The staff grew from about 30 to 45, and Obama created a faith-based advisory council of leaders from faith-based social service organizations. It led college campus programs on interfaith issues and worked to help faith-based programs helping fathers. It also created a program to train State Department workers abroad on religion and foreign policy.

DuBois did nothing to remedy a church’s ability to avoid employee hiring laws and hire only their own religiots. By that, secular organizations must insist on hiring only atheists.

DuBois, despite his youth, earned the respect of many who work at the intersection of faith and politics, but he was criticized for not changing a policy that preceded him that allows religious groups that receive federal funds to hire and fire based on an employee’s religion.

>>

Many Muslims believe in the apocalypse. Great, more fear mongering. But I guess it is to be expected considering how much of the Koran is stolen from the Bible.

“There are Muslim apocalyptic readings of the book of Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation,” says Cook. “The only difference is the ‘good guys’ are Muslims, not Christians.”

The Muslim Jesus destroys the cross and the swine, symbols of Christian innovations, and converts Christians to Islam, said Abdulaziz Sachedina, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Virginia. Whether he does so violently or not is a matter of debate.

In Islamic tradition, Jesus is joined by a figure named the Mahdi, who helps subdue Satan and rid the world of corruption and injustice.

>>

Another Phelps left the cult of the Westboro Baptist church.

Westboro’s back in the news this week, but not for its usual hate-filled protests at the funerals of soldiers or victims of mass shootings. No, the organization, which has fewer than 100 members, is down two more now that Megan Phelps-Roper and her sister Grace, granddaughters of Westboro founder Fred Phelps, have publicly announced their departure. Megan was well-known as the “face” of the organization, using social media to spread the group’s message.

…

But something happened. Megan explained it to online journalist Jeff Chu: Her doubts started when David Abitbol, an Israeli Web developer and founder of the blog Jewlicious.com, responded to a comment of hers about homosexuals with, “But Jesus said, ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’ ” She found it “funny” that a Jew would quote Jesus, but then Abitbol pointed out something besides homosexuality that was punishable by death, according to the Old Testament.

“I realized that if the death penalty was instituted for any sin, you completely cut off the opportunity to repent,” Megan told Chu. “And that’s what Jesus was talking about.”

It’s not about belief here but the grace of repentance. Sometimes, you have to accept baby steps. Just what the hell was Jesus talking about and how would you know from the snippets in the bible?

>>

A pastor quit his job when he saw “666″ on his tax form and then a few days later withdrew his resignation.

“I cannot accept this number. If you accept that number, you sell your soul to the devil,” Slonopas told ABC News… Slonopas said he became a born-again Christian more than 10 years ago. He said all he wants is a new W-2 form from the company. Otherwise, he said, he wont file his taxes.

Well, that’s a good start. I say let’s print “666″ on every tax form and have them all quit. If you believe you’re eating Christ and god speaks to you a number is satan.

>>
A Saint Paul, MN police officer had to apologize for wearing a hijab to a Halloween party.

A St. Paul police officer issued an apology Tuesday for dressing in a hijab for Halloween and posing for a picture that exploded on the Internet among the Twin Cities’ Somali and Muslim communities.

“I apologize to anyone who may have been offended by the recently publicized photo which showed me at a private Halloween party on my personal time,” officer Robert Buth said. “I sincerely regret that the image, which was never intended to become public, may have been viewed to be insensitive to the Muslim community.”

The arrogant self protection of Islam against any criticism whatsoever while insisting everyone should be Islamic … I suppose the police are worried that local Somali will create more terrorists in righteous anger. Halloween is already the day when people dress as saints and demons to scare real demons away. It is all so serious. Oh, right, Islam doesn’t allow music and dancing either just like Puritans and early Mormons. Clearly, Halloween, a religious holiday deserving of respect. Only by dressing as a priest, Imam, demon, or scientologist can one purge the world of demons. Did the Muslims not read the party book? Did they forget they are in America? When you come here you leave your royalty and oppressive philosophies at port.

When we are required by law to not ridicule and mock the oppressive habits of totalitarian regimes–yes, religion is all embracing authority into every aspect of our lives–we will have lost all semblance of freedom and liberty. Piss them off, piss them all off as the brutish oafs they are. I suppose it would be politically incorrect to criticize circumcision and clitorectomies too.

Peter Hitchens got one thing correct:

Please can we stop using the stupid expression “political correctness gone mad” . First, political correctness is a stern, fierce movement which is completely sane and sets out deliberately to stop us from saying – and thinking – various things. It is not a joke, nor is it out of control. It is deliberate, purposeful and serious. Those who enforce it plan to change the world and they will succeed for as long as we treat PC as a laugh, or as some sort of batty bureaucratic mix-up which will go away in the end… We also need to realise that it has one very powerful weapon. It poses as the friend of good manners. It claims that it is the only force that can stop people being rude, dismissive or unpleasant to racial minorities or homosexuals. It pretends that it is the only movement that is interested in improving the lives of women

Jim Newman, bright and well

www.frontiersofreason.com

Various law suits are attempting to enforce the desire to withhold insurance or sales of contraception, abortives, etc due to religious protection.

As stated in an illinois case.

“The company’s Catholic owners believe that providing their employees with insurance coverage that facilitate abortion, contraception and sterilization constitutes “cooperation with evil that violates the laws of God.”

A Michigan court flopped the other way.

“…a Michigan federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to two affiliated manufacturing companies (one a corporation and one an LLC) or their owners who object that the contraception coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act violates their religious liberty. The court rejected plaintiffs’ 1st Amendment free exercise claim, finding that the mandate is a neutral rule of general applicability.  Moving to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the court concluded that plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their claim that the mandate imposes a substantial burden on their free exercise rights, in part because the company already contributes up to $1500 to each employee for a health savings account whose funds can be used for contraception. The court added:

Plaintiffs argue, in essence, that the Court cannot look beyond their sincerely held  assertion  of  a religiously based objection to the mandate to  assess whether it actually functions as a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. But if accepted, this theory would mean that every government regulation could be subject to the compelling interest and narrowest possible means test of RFRA based simply on an asserted religious basis for objection. This would subject virtually every government action to a potential private veto based on a person’s ability to articulate a sincerely held objection tied in some rational way to a particular religious belief.  Such a rule would paralyze the normal process of governing, and threaten to replace a generally uniform pattern of economic and social regulation with a patchwork array of theocratic fiefdoms.

I love the phrase “patchwork of theocratic fiefdoms.” Another case in Missouri.

“…a Missouri federal magistrate judge issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate to require a for-profit dairy farming and cheese making business to cover abortifacient devices ( Plan B, Ella and copper IUDs) and related counseling.  In addition to the company, plaintiffs in the case were Charles Sharpe, the founder-owner and CEO of the company, and two employees who “pay a portion of the required premiums and enjoy the benefits of the self-insured program.”  In addition to concluding that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act the mandate and its penalties would substantially burden plaintiffs’ free exercise rights, the court held that for 1st Amendment purposes, the mandate is not a neutral law of general applicability:

Plaintiffs have shown to the court’s satisfaction for the purposes of these initial proceedings, that the ACA mandate is not generally applicable because it does not apply to grandfathered health plans, religious employers, or employers with fewer than fifty employees.  Specifically, plaintiffs argue that the ACA mandate’s exemptions clearly prefer secular purposes over religious purposes and some religious purposes over other religious purposes.  Burdens cannot be selectively imposed only on conduct motivated by religious belief.

Again, look at that last sentence: “Burdens cannot be selectively imposed only on conduct motivated by religious belief.” It works both ways. Another case in Michigan.

“…a Michigan federal district court held that the property management company, Domino’s Farms Corp., and its owner Thomas Monaghan (founder of Domino’s Pizza) had adequately alleged that the mandate imposes a substantial burden on Monaghan’s Catholic religious beliefs:

Monaghan contends that his compliance with the mandate would require him to violate his religious beliefs because the mandate forces him, and/or the corporation he controls, to pay for, provide, facilitate, or otherwise support contraception, sterilization and to some extent, abortion….

The Supreme Court has held that “putting substantial pressure  on an adherent  to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs” substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion…. [T]he Court is in no position to decide whether and to what extent Monaghan would violate his religious beliefs by complying with the mandate….  Other courts have assumed that a law substantially burdens a person’s free exercise of religion based on that person’s assertions.

Combine these with the following case in Hawaii:

 ”…an Hawaii federal district court, in a case on remand from the 9th Circuit (see prior posting), permitted a church’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim to proceed to challenge enforcement of the federal drug laws. The suit was brought by a church that uses cannabis in its religious ceremonies and by a spiritual leader who founded the church.”

Slightly different but in the Hawaii case, it is interesting because it is the founder of the church. The church is new. What constitutes a church and when is a church legitimized in the US?

I have a couple of questions here:

When can a business withhold services otherwise available to the public, its employees?

How do we prevent religious status being used to arbitrarily circumvent antidiscrimination, civil freedom, and labor laws?

The US has somewhat survived the racial segregation laws of serving all people in a business, as well as emphasizing the ubiquitous devices required to serve handicapped people. But what of something like a uniform, a tie, or suit.  A case involving wearing a tie at a restaurant was won because the plaintiff proved it was gender discrimination, under the Civil Rights Act, as women were not required to wear a tie. But what of religion?

First, as contrasting basis, it is a strong informal ethic in the US to be able to withhold services as an owner desires. There is tremendous tension between the owner who wishes to control their customers versus the customer’s right to enter a store and purchase what they please. Owners believe they possess some basic right to serve who they wish, as they wish, believing they own the product, they own the store, and hence they control the obligations of exchange. However, this is not the case at all and hasn’t been so for some time.

Additionally, much time in law has been spent protecting the rights of employee’s and their employer. Again, in the US, there is a strong belief in a basic right to hire and fire as one wishes based of any number of presumptions including qualifications, ability, merit, relationship, tenure, character, race, religion, and other civil distinctions that may or may not meet the temperament of the owner, aside from the actual job requirements.

Indeed, some employers have tried to control how employees spend their income which is also illegal. You can’t refuse pay because the employee has said they are going to use it for something with which the employer disagrees, regardless of their ardor or even the presumed legality of its use; you can’t refuse to pay me because I say I’m going whoring.

The difficulty with religion is the vast differentiation of the sacred versus the profane between religions, and the ease with which a church can be created. Clearly, the government did not protect religion with the view that myriad new churches would arise, both as a contingent event, and as a means to discriminate based on what is thought to be important, the newly sacred, in the church. The church must have some history before and not be ad hoc to a recent desire to exclude. How would we resolve changes within a church? At one time they may say their bible condones alcohol and another they may say it is a sin.

The issue of a general mandate true for all people means discrimination need only show an individual’s membership in the general mandate for protection. This will be the crux of these law suits. When the government provides protection or ability to the civil people when can another group rescind that protection or ability?

The distinction otherwise becomes ridiculous. If a church believes taking drugs or receiving medical help is evil, it does not enable church members, as employers, to prevent employees from going to the hospital. Indeed, if such, eg, a chemical company, realizes a contract involves the use of chemicals to make drugs for hospitals it cannot refuse to sell the chemicals.

Without this sort of protection it would become easy for companies to use the umbrella of church affiliation to discriminate against many people however they wish. Why not prevent the sale of goods to those who don’t belong to a church? If a church believes its laws to be superior to those of the civil courts, it is essentially practicing treason or criminal conduct. Once the government creates a law for everyone–religious freedom does not mean religious oppression. If a church believes that medicine is illegal it cannot prevent people from using their products to make medical instruments, or use it directly. Nor can it force other practices, such as praying. A business cannot force its customers to pray before or after purchase. If a customer wishes to use rubbing alcohol to sterilize a wound, a drug store cannot withhold its sale insisting it be used only for massage. No matter how sincerely they believe antisepsis is profane.

This basis is true for its employees as well. If insurance s mandated as part of labor laws and negotiation, the company can’t dictate how that money is to be spent. If a company doesn’t believe in medicine it can’t force its employees to not use their insurance for medical care. Religious freedom protects members from persecution and does not serve as protection for religion to persecute nonmembers. You can be protected from but not enabled to.

It is not different than the seemingly slight aspect of praying. As an employee I can’t be forced to pray–assuming praying isn’t part of the product or service. The church may insist that its members pray so many times a day but an employee can’t be fired because they refuse to pray. Nor can it say to pray instead as medical prosthesis. This seems slight as what effort and pain does praying involve? Its inclusion as religious persecution shows just how far off we are in the current debate in protecting people from religious oppression. If I can’t be forced to pray then why can’t I get contraception? If I receive money from the government to my use, regardless of support by taxes or direct input, an employer or business can’t mandate its use.

Jim Newman, bright and well

www.frontiersofreason.com

I grew up in a small town with a lot of bible-believing religions in it, including a pretty big group of Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Evangelicals. I had a lot of LDS friends growing up and it wasn’t until college that I started to realize that Mormons weren’t as common as I’d thought. The Mormons I know are pretty chill and wonderful people. They’d never abandon a gay family member and they’re usually game for any of my odd questions about Mormonism. And they like The Book of Mormon: The Musical.

In college, though, I ran into more and more people that thought all Mormons were anti gay and extremely secretive. Then Prop 8 happened and I didn’t know what was happening anymore. A couple Mormon friends and I put together a FAQ about this new website and the Mormon perspective on homosexuality. You’ll probably find the answers to be conservative, but give it a read anyway. There’s things here that you probably haven’t heard before and many news sites a

Image from Mormon Meme Tumblr

ren’t reporting on. You should always get your information from the source.

“Why are Mormons so secretive?”
They’re not secretive, they’re just uncommon. You probably just don’t know any. The next time you get some Mormon missionaries at your door, ask away. Also, the Mormon Churches (but not the temples. Temples are members-only.) are always open to the public, so feel free to drop in and get some of those questions answered. Pro-tip: don’t open with “what’s up with Magic Underwear?” or “I heard that during the temple marriage ceremonies that …” Those sorts of things either a) aren’t true or b) super holy things that aren’t proper to discuss with non-members. Do ask about polygamy though. Always ask about the polygamy. They’re very eager for that rumor to be settled down.

“Are Mormons polygamous?”
Nope. Not since the wild, wild, west days. They can tell you all about it though. (Fun side fact: one of my ancestors was Ann Eliza Webb, so I could also tell you all about it, but that’s for another time.)

“Are Mormons anti-gay?”
To Mormons, being gay isn’t a choice. You’re born that way. It can’t be helped. Homosexual urges are normal and sin-free, but acting on them is a sin because any sort of sex outside of marriage is a sin.

“Are Mormons anti-gay marriage?”
Mormons across the board are anti-gay marriage in a Mormon temple. If secular people or non-mormon people want to get gay-married outside of a Mormon temple, that’s their choice and most Mormons don’t really care. But if you want a Mormon wedding at the local temple, God says that proper Mormon weddings are between a man and a women.

“Can Mormons have gay relationships outside of marriage?”
Mormons shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage. Even though the book of Mormon doesn’t specifically talk about homosexual relations, the Book of Mormon is very clear about chastity before marriage and about fidelity to your wife.

“Mormons sound really conservative.”
Yes. Yes they are. But not as conservative as you’d might think. In the US, Mormons are about 20% Democrat and most of the rest characterize themselves as “moderate conservatives,” and don’t really identify with Glenn Beck. There’s a chunk that are very right-wing, ultra conservative, but for the most part, Mormons are moderate conservatives.

“But what about Prop 8?”
Prop 8 has been a headache for Mormons everywhere. As a group, they’re trying to move on and they don’t really like to talk about it. While a lot of Mormons support the *idea* of Prop 8, they were pretty baffled why the Church went full force into California. The Church generally isn’t particularly politically active. Because of their Church’s history, Mormons are pretty big believers in the separation of church and state. Even though the membership is pretty conservative, the Church tries to stay politically neutral.
Some of the more liberal membership flipped a lid, some of the more conservative were hard core into it. Most were a bit surprised, but ultimately were OK with it and went on with life. Within the Mormon community, the debate around Prop 8 and the new website, characterize the difference between so-called “Utah Mormons” and other Mormons.

“What’s a Utah Mormon?”
It’s a very conservative and slightly fanatical type of Mormon. It’s not an official term for an official group of Mormons. It’s just in-group jargon to refer to Mormons that are extra conservative and a little bit holier-than-thou. You don’t have to have ever lived in Utah to be considered a ‘Utah Mormon’. Also not all Mormons in Utah are “Utah Mormons”. It’s just jargon. The character “Elder Kevin Price” in the Book of Mormon Musical is a good example of a Utah Mormon.
As my friend says in their characteristically diplomatic way: “The best way to describe them is a little bit judgmental, naive, and hypocritical.”

“So what’s the deal with the website?”
Prop 8 was a public relations nightmare for the Church, but the website is only partly about reaching out to the public at large. Another reason for the website is to give Mormons a resource to go to when they have questions about their gay son or daughter, or if they have questions about their own homosexuality. But most importantly, it’s an attempt to get the “Utah Mormons” to chill out, because they’re not loving everyone like they should. The message of the website is: We’re all God’s children, so stop ostracizing people. Especially your kids. Seriously.

“Now can I ask about the Magic Underwear?”
Sure. It’s not as weird as it sounds. Mormons call them garments. The garments are a symbol of the covenants Mormons make with God in the Temple. These covenants are basic things that any good Christian should be following anyway. (chastity, etc) They are no different than other religious article of clothing. Priests have their collars, Jews have their yarmulke, other religions have their clothing. The clothes are there to remind us who we are. Mormons just wear them on the inside.

Post by Jim Newman

————————

The NY Times reports on an odd situation in Texas—boy that’ll stand out: A Christian man has stepped forward for separation of church and state and enforced the removal of religious bible banners from sports events. Apparently, Kevin Weldon, is damned, now, like the rest of us. I think god, if there is one, would understand Weldon. Thank you Kevin Weldon. Rick Perry, no doubt, will swoop down and save the day against these sweet cheerleaders. I don’t mind, for the sake of freedom and freindship, the heart-felt sentiments my religious friends give me but I don’t want sports games to be religious games

“In a barrage of recent e-mails, telephone calls and letters to his office, Kevin Weldon has been called some of the worst things a Christian man in this predominantly Christian town can be called: un-Christian, and even anti-Christian.

So what about the rest of the town? I always wonder when I read “predominantly” what about everyone else? How does a town thrive when a chunk of its people are damned? They always say a group can be spoiled by a few and then we read about oppression of minorities by a majority and you gotta wonder, when is it class warfare and when is it righteous ostracism if that’s even possible. Too often free expression is used to promote oppression.

“I’ve been in this business a long, long time,” said Mr. Weldon, the superintendent of the 1,300-student school district in Kountze, northeast of Houston. “People that know me know how I am. Even though I got those things, I’m going to be honest with you, this may sound very flippant, but it just went in one ear and out the other.”

In one ear and out the other seems right for Texas culture though in this case for good reason. But for myself I wonder how I can do that? Shit, I have to, to, to do whatever to get the ringing out of my head—that angry noise of a mob wishing I were otherwise. Empathy is a curse. It makes you able to feel and experience as others do but then you can’t lose it. It’s like watching a horror movie and dreaming about it, unable to clear the clutter and say it’s time for something else. As an atheist I need to be stronger than I want.

“Mr. Weldon, 53, is in a position that few superintendents in small-town Texas have found themselves: taking a stand on religious expression that has put him at odds with the majority of his students and his neighbors, not to mention the governor, the attorney general and, some in Kountze believe, his God.

Used to be a politician was an educated individual that balanced the needs of their community with laws and culture. Politicians have long lived in the Bermuda Triangle of voter support, legal viability, and personal conscience. Hell any sheriff of any town can confess the difficulty of upholding the law, promoting neighbors as individuals, and not taking bribes or threats.

“After consulting with lawyers, Mr. Weldon banned the district’s cheerleaders from putting Bible verses on the banners they hoist at the beginning of football games, out of concern that the signs were unlawful and amounted to school-sanctioned religious expression. A group of cheerleaders and their parents sued Mr. Weldon and the district, prompting a legal battle that has outraged and inspired Christians across the country. Last week, a judge issued a temporary injunction, barring the district from prohibiting the banners for the rest of the football season while the case proceeds to trial.

At least Weldon consulted with lawyers instead of insisting he knew it already, or as we will see considered the human interpreted law of the bible above the human interpreted law of the land. I guess it’s not time to belabor the bible as not being very consistent but it certainly nowhere affirms the waving of bible banners for god’s support in a friendly game against one’s neighbors.

“Mr. Weldon, a Protestant and former football coach, has said he supports the cheerleaders and their message, but feels he must uphold the law. Though he has taken a stand that pleases the Anti-Defamation League and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, he is not their ally. Though his action upset the Liberty Institute, a Christian legal group representing the cheerleaders, he is not their opponent. He is caught somewhere in between.

So, he is not doing it because he believes he should but rather because he must because it is the law, apparently one not worth his own conscientious civil disobedience. In this sense Weldon is an outsider. He cares more about the school than parents’ concern for illegal religious expression being legitimized.

“He made the decision against the popular prevailing sentiment, and he’s been reviled for it,” Mr. Weldon’s lawyer, Thomas P. Brandt, told the judge last week. “He has stood, though, solidly in favor of not what he personally wants, but what he perceives the law requires.”

I hazard a guess that it is the best spot for one wanting to remain within the folds of the community and not be cast out as a satan lover. It’s the law. Don’t like it, change the law. It’s not him it’s the law. One wonders whether when at home with his wife he says he thinks separation of church and state is good or bad—just curious. Either way he’s doing the right thing. The law doesn’t usually consider intention pertinent.

“Mr. Weldon has had to defend his decision even as Gov. Rick Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott and scores of students, parents and others have criticized the district’s ban on the signs and registered their dismay and disgust in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. The marquee outside the First Baptist Church quoted Acts 5:29: “We must obey God rather than men.” Steve Stockman, a born-again Christian and former congressman running for re-election in the area, suggested that Mr. Weldon’s job was on the line.

I could write a book of the asinine sayings people put on the outside of churches. Weldon’s job is on the line. If he is right to report the infraction then he is saving the community from a huge lawsuit. If he is wrong then the community should make it clear they seek a lawsuit and are willing to pay for it.

“Banning religion is a direct assault on our founding principles,” Mr. Stockman said in a statement. “This is East Texas, not San Francisco. The superintendent can either overturn his ban on religion, or pack his bags.”

San Francisco? That allegation, or should I say analogy, is usually remarked when it is a sexual or gender identity issue. I guess he just meant “far away, liberal place”. Otherwise it could have been New Jersey.

“Not everyone has been so harsh. Rebekah Richardson, 17, a Kountze High School cheerleader, said: “We understand that he’s in a hard situation.”

“Mr. Weldon said that over all, people in Kountze have treated him respectfully. He has attended the football games without incident, watching the Kountze Lions burst through the very banners (“But thanks be to God, which gives us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ,” one read) at issue in the lawsuit. “It’s a great small town, and they’re just standing up for what they truly believe in,” he said. “You can’t fault people for that.”

I never know what to say in the face of people who praise those who are just standing up for what they truly believe in. It’s like the trump card in religious arguments—I just believe it’s true with all of my heart. Great, lets stop talking and stand up and testify what we feel is true—One Cat, One Vote, and One Beer—and forget trying to work through the problem.

Everyone, nearly everyone, is standing up for what they believe in. Unless clinically sociopathic or psychopathic everyone uses their minds, their hearts, and their sociability to make decisions. It’s not like those that don’t stand up don’t give a shit–they’re just too tired, depressed, or beat down to give a verbal damn. I do fault people for good intentions and poor actions. I fault those that accept poor behavior because of so called good intentions. This isn’t a social tea party. These are issues where we must pay attention and if we cannot we throw away the core of democracy. I can praise strength of conviction but it is not the goal.

If the parents consider the display of religious banners at sports games sufficiently important to rebel against the obvious spirit of separation of church and state and wish to make personal theology supreme, I can only appeal to the law and why it is a good one. But saying they can’t be faulted is facile in the face of the argument. It’s like stopping in the middle of the debate and saying “damn, I admire you because you showed up today.” No one doubts the sincerity of either party.

“In a heavily wooded part of the state called the Big Thicket, Kountze is an old-fashioned town of 2,100 with a history of religious tolerance. In the early 1990s, residents elected their first black mayor, Charles Bilal, a Muslim. The majority white, Christian voters made Mr. Bilal the first Muslim mayor in the United States. His granddaughter, Nahissaa Bilal, 17, a Christian, is a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

This is where I feel like I have dropped a hit of acid. Already tempered, this community is harboring regrets for its recent past and wishes to emphasis its Christian community?

“Mr. Weldon is a relative newcomer here, arriving last year to lead the district, which has only four schools. With his white-haired crew-cut and burly frame, he resembled not a former coach but a former linebacker, and though his critics claim he has cowered to blue-state liberals, his office décor seemed decidedly red, with the head of the biggest deer he ever shot while hunting mounted in a corner.

This explains it. He’s a newbie. He’s gotta live there 10 years and then he’s still just moved there. Used to be the South was more democratic as a political party. Remember LBJ and his Great Society, the civil rights era, and the reaction to LBJ. Remember, the gracious, social, and genteel elder female presence that allowed difference because it was right, which vaporized in the face of big oil, big business, and the paranoid fixation on personal morals as political choice towards salvation or not. The South protected their declining wealth, which once again, reared its ugly head as anger towards the North who were raping their culture and resources even if only blues, farm goods–bluesmen, teamsters and manpower as well. Banning Mexicans that actually wanted to stay, own a house, and get a living wage, but not be white—what were they thinking?

“The cheerleaders’ case centers on whether the banners amount to private speech protected by state and federal law, or government-sponsored speech that can be regulated and censored. Lawyers for the students argued that because the cheerleaders created the messages after school without guidance or financial assistance from administrators, their banners were private speech. District lawyers said the banners were in no way akin to someone waving a John 3:16 sign in the stands and could be regulated, because the cheerleaders were school representatives.

Aside from the legalities I have to wonder why invoke God? I suppose that’s better than displaying signs that say crush them or kill them or just maim them for an hour or two—just a couple of points. Sports are often compared to sublimated military events. The compassion here is to never use more force than necessary. We don’t obliterate a country. We don’t attack civilians. There are rules in war for good reason—destroying all resource strangles any people left and harming civilians ensures long hatred towards the victor regardless of the cause of war.

Praying for god to help you when you believe in god sincerely is a cosmic cheat. It’s like putting a burr under the saddle or cattle prodding the bronco before the gate opens. If you truly believe god is on your side and you can create a minor miracle by petitioning for his assistance then there is no game involved, no chance, no skill, no luck, not even Christian abeyance, as it is a reward for past observance. Why play the game? You know the most Christian side will win? The one which prays the hardest! Perhaps they should shun the world and do nothing but pray as the Jewish Hasidim do, trusting that god will act justly—performing whatever miracle is necessary, or not. If they want to promote their religion become a missionary and knock on doors.

Prayer was never to be about gaining favor with god. That it is used that way debases Christianity to common wishful thinking or wanting personal reward over another. Of course, as an atheist I would slam the religion just for that inherent inconsistency. But as a philosopher I observe that theological banners at sports events don’t seem to follow the spirit of Christianity. Should God really care whether your team wins or another? Are your neighbors greater sinners and need a bitch slap convoluted through a sports activity? Do you need a false motivation like an idol or false prophet to inspire you to better performance? Really?

“The case began last month, when the district received a letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based group of atheists and agnostics. The letter, written on behalf of an anonymous resident who had attended a game, called the cheerleaders’ banners unconstitutional. Mr. Weldon said he contacted lawyers for the district and for the Texas Association of School Boards. Both advised him to prohibit the signs. The advice stemmed from a Supreme Court ruling in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, which established that prayers led by students at high school football games were unconstitutional.

I would be offended too. Hell, I am offended my Jr High School daughter’s science book never mentions the word evolution. I say whoever wins is indicative of whose god was the strongest–your god or my god, your bible or my bible. I can pretty well guarantee that polytheism shrank to monotheism because it is impossible to resolve the argument of whose god is strongest, who is the most godly, and politically the strongest position would be an insistence that there is only one god. Asking a god to choose sides in a sports event of a common theology is like asking god to have multiple allegiances or to assume god can determine who will be saved or not long before death—how then grace or personal salvation? Why bother to obey god if your fate is predetermined?

“Myself and the board have said all along that we do not have a problem with the kids doing what they’re doing,” Mr. Weldon said. “We’re not hostile against any type of religion, but we also want to make sure as a school district that we’re following the law.”

“In a state where courtroom battles over public expressions of Christianity are routine, the cheerleaders’ case has been unusual. In other disputes, local officials have been on the same side as state leaders, or they have taken neutral stands. In 2001, after Mr. Perry prompted criticism by bowing his head and saying “Amen” as a pastor led a prayer at an East Texas public school, the superintendent there tried to stay out of the issue. “I’m not going to question the governor,” the superintendent in Palestine, Jerry Mayo, told The Associated Press at the time.

“But in Kountze, Mr. Weldon has ended up aligned, albeit reluctantly, with the out-of-state atheist group that first complained about the banners. Many in town thought the two sides would settle the lawsuit. The negotiations stalled, and the case proceeded at the Hardin County Courthouse.

Weldon placed himself as an outlier. Just as in other cases where boards split over the issue, any noncomformist to local majority is anathema by definition.

“Mr. Weldon had to testify, answering questions about whether he harbored a hostility toward Christianity or the Bible. He said in court, under questioning by a lawyer for the cheerleaders, David Starnes, that his directive violated a school policy that allowed students to express their religious viewpoints at nongraduation events. And Mr. Weldon had to watch while his lawyer cross-examined two nervous students, one of whom was a 16-year-old cheerleader who cried on the stand.

“Afterward, Mr. Weldon sought out the two students. The defendant had a message for the plaintiffs. He told them he was proud of them.

For Weldon, it really seems like the strong desire to do what’s right regardless and not for reward or social pressure. In the spirit of Christianity, whatever that really is, I say as a religious outsider, he sounds the most Christian of all of them.

The right thing for the community would be to understand why this scripture is offensive to others including other Christians. And why seeking religious support in sports games invites everyone to appeal to their own god and to continue this absurd commotion of whose religious faith is strongest. It would be a joke if religion didn’t cause so many problems in the world. Snoopy says go team. Fred Flintstone loves the Bulls. Pokemon rules the Patriots. Meh. When Flintstone followers bomb Pokemon followers I will worry about those groups.

Jim Newman, bright and well

www.frontiersofreason.com