Newt Declares War on Judges who Favor Atheists and Liberals

Newt Gingrich is known for outrageous outbursts and wild ideas, but he's putting out some really scary stuff this week.

His latest attack is on the independence of the judiciary. Any time a judge issues a ruling that Gingrich doesn't like, he wants to send U.S. Marshals out with congressional subpoenas to haul the judge in front of Congress, where the judge would be grilled by every angry member of Congress who didn't agree with the judge's ruling.

Does that sound like a good way to ensure an independent judiciary?

Next, Newt will simply ignore the law if he becomes president. Under his leadership, the Executive Branch of government will simply ignore the Judicial Branch whenever Newt doesn't like the law.

Yeah, I think I'll do that too – just ignore any laws I don't like. If Newt can do it, why can't I?

And if that isn't enough to destroy the careful balance of powers enshrined in our Constitution, Gingrich wants to

Georgia License Plates Require 'In God We Trust' - Why this is Great!

Secular News Daily is reporting a new Georgia law that will require "In God We Trust" on all car license plates. Georgians who don't like it will have to pay extra to get a state-approved sticker to cover it up!

Atheists are naturally up in arms about this glaring violation of the First Amendment. But I sort of like it. I believe this could be one of the best things that happened to secularism in America in the last ten years – if they're foolish enough to go through with it.

Why? Because it could force the Supreme Court to take "In God We Trust" off of our money.

Atheists have objected to "In God We Trust" on currency and as the national motto for decades, but the courts have been unsympathetic. The Supreme Court stated that

Catholics Persecuted over Gay Adoption in Illinois? Not Even Close.

Once again, the Roman Catholic Church is giving out misinformation instead of facing the truth.

Catholic Charities, an Illinois adoption agency, had to close its doors because it lost funding from the state. According to attorney Peter Breen, the state is breaking the plain language of the law and violating the will of the citizens:

"The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act only passed after specific assurances that the law would not impact the work of religious social service agencies. Specific protections for these agencies were written into the law, but unfortunately, Illinois officials refused to abide by those protections. This stands as a stark lesson to the rest of the nation that legislators promising 'religious protection' in same sex marriage and civil union laws may not be able to deliver on those promises."

Gosh, that sounds awful, doesn't it?

But this is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the real truth. They lost on Constitutional principles that had nothing to do with the Illinois Civil Union Act.

The simple fact is that the Catholic Charities can continue to provide

Obama: Leave God in Pledge and on Money

"Under God" is going to stay in the Pledge of Allegiance for a while.

Last month a petition to President Obama to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance was signed by over 20,000 American citizens. It's clear that this is a minority opinion in America, but protecting minorities is what the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is all about.

Now the White House has made the administration's position clear: God should stay in our Pledge and on our currency. I know for a fact that regardless of the President's feelings about separation of church and state, he'd be committing political suicide to endorse anything that took God out of our government. That's just politics.

The heart of the White House response is this:

"A sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters.

That’s why President Obama supports the use of the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance and “In God we Trust” on our currency.

So, we have to look at this petition as just one more step on a long road.

Below is the whole text the email I received from the White House.

"Ministerial Exception" - A Solution to Legalized Discrimination

The Christian Science Monitor has cast its vote on whether churches are allowed to discriminate on the basis of faith. Their answer, not surprisingly, is "yes":

"On Wednesday, the Supreme Court hears the case of a Christian schoolteacher fired in a dispute over a disability and church doctrine. The justices should be careful about allowing government to judge a faith's teachings when it is charged with discrimination."

(The fourth-grade teacher was fired because she took a disability leave, was asked to resign, and then filed a discrimination lawsuit rather that using the employer's Christ-based dispute-resolution process.)

The Monitor goes on to explain that some religions are so bizarre

Do It! Sign the Petition to take "Under God" Out of the Pledge!

OK all you dilettantes and dabblers, you casual readers and sideline critics ... it's time to get off your butts and do something important! This will take you less than five minutes – three if you're quick – and it will make a difference.

Sign the White House Petition to remove "Under God" from the Pledge.

If you're a fellow blogger, put this link on your site too! (http://wh.gov/g0T)

The number of signers already blasted past the original goal of 5,000. Can we get 100,000? 500,000? A million atheists standing up for their rights? It could happen! But it depends on you.

You'll have to spend about thirty seconds typing your name and email to create an account on whitehouse.gov, then wait a few seconds for the

Good News: Court Sides with Two Atheist Lawsuits

Life is keeping me busy today, so there's just time for a couple quick links. The first is a story about a Christian teacher who was ordered to remove a huge Christian poster from his math classroom:

Court says teacher has no right to banners referring to God

The court originally ruled in favor of the teacher, but the school district appealed and the District Court in San Francisco reversed the decision. The teacher now has to pay the school's legal fees.

The second story is a follow-up: remember James Corbett, teacher extraordinaire? He made the mistake of treating Christianity like any other topic, open to analysis and criticism in his history classes. He was sued by a Christian student who claimed Corbett had violated his right to religious freedom.

Last month we got the good news that the Appeals Court finally sided with Corbett. The Court ruled that Corbett's lessons in the classroom were not against the law. The ruling was somewhat technical, but still a big victory for education and good teachers.

The Best 9/11 Quote Ever: Leon Wieseltier at the Kennedy Center

Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, is being widely quoted from his amazing speech at 9/11: An Evening of Remembrance and Reflection at the Kennedy Center. The part that everyone likes the best is this:

The obscenities of September 11, 2001 exposed the difference between builders and destroyers. We are builders. Let us agree, on this anniversary, that it is an honor to be an American and it is an honor to be free.

Truly great words. That distinction, between those who create and those who destroy, between those who want to move forward and those who want to drag us down, is the very heart of why 9/11 happened. The Taliban and all terrorists are nothing but vandals who would tear down the great works of others. Their own actions condemn their religion.

But the mainstream media seem to be deliberately ignoring the very best quote from Leon Wieseltier's speech:

We affirm ... that none of our worldviews, with God or without God, should ever become the worldview of the state, and that no sanctity ever attaches to violence.

That is the real heart of 9/11. When sanctity attaches to violence, anything can be justified. And when a state, which has

Candidate Cain: Constitution Allows Anti-Islam Discrimination!

I've seen politicians twist the Constitution before, but this one takes the cake:

"Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state. They're using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community ... [The communities] objected to the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws. ... They have a right to [ban a Mosque]"

Wow. Mr. Cain says we all have a constitutional right to free speech, freedom of assembly and the freedom to worship as we please ... but all these rights evaporate if our religion tries to inject its beliefs into government!

Mr. Cain has conveniently forgotten that this is exactly the same thing that America's evangelical Christians believe.

Let's start with Cain's opponent, Mitt Romney, who said:

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

Hmmm, that sounds like combining church and state to me, Mr. Cain. So Romney's out. What about Mike Huckabee, another front runner?

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."

Gosh, we're not getting anywhere, are we Mr. Cain? It seems those darned Christians are no better than the Muslims you despise!

What about Michele Bachmann, another Republican candidate? Oh yeah, she's the one whose family runs a "clinic" that "cures" gays of their homosexuality using prayer and Christian practices. And she also

Best Christian Quote of the Year: Preacher Fail

This has to be the best Christian quote of the year:

"... [If] God doesn't destroy America pretty soon, He’s gonna have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."
– John MacArthur, Christian evangelical author and preacher

One of the biggest problems facing America today is that preachers like John MacArthur are diverting us from the real problems.

MacArthur is one of those doom-and-gloom preachers who love to preach darkness and damnation. He must be pretty famous because he's authored or edited something like 150 books. (One has to suspect there's a certain amount of redundancy in his writing after the fortieth or fiftieth book.)

His big show involves the classic Christian recipe:

• Convince his audience that everything pleasurable is actually a vile sin that's damned by God.
• Point out that everyone likes fun stuff, so we're all vile sinners.
• Connect this to confusing prophecies and irrelevant myths that were written by stone-age farmers two to three thousand years ago.
• The sky is falling! God is going to get us, and boy are you sinners going to be sorry!

Here are a couple samples:

“Materialism, drunkard pleasure seeking, arrogant conceit, defiant sinfulness, moral perversion, and corrupt leadership… Do you not see [them] in America?”

"What do we have here? We have here, folks, Anthony Weiner type people…corrupt leaders. Is there ever any end to this corruption... ?"

But the real danger from preachers like MacArthur is that they want to take over America and turn it into a theocracy

"No other nation has literally been born out of a desire to be faithful and obedient to the living and abiding Word of God. America is the first nation that separated Church and State."

It's sad how many people fall for this brand of doom-and-gloom speech. There are certainly problems in America and around the world, but not the ones MacArthur is talking about.

Did you see drug users causing the subprime mortgage crisis? No, it was bankers and

Canadian Christians Just as Discriminatory as Americans?

I've always thought of Canada as a bit more progressive than the United States. Their health care is way ahead of ours, and they don't go around blowing up other countries for no reason.

But apparently the Canadian Christians (in this case, it's mostly Catholics) take their cues straight from the same playbook as Americans. When it comes to religious discrimination, they're in the big leagues.

The city council of Saguenay, Quebec refused to take a crucifix down from the City Council's chambers. It took a lawsuit from a local atheist and a court order to settle the issue. But is it settled? No. The mayor still refuses to take the crucifix down! Not only that, he's vowed to fight the court order and has started privately gathering funds for the battle.

But what's even more amazing is that he's claiming discrimination!

"Why is it us Christians that always have to bend?" [Mayor] Tremblay told the Globe and Mail newspaper. "Our values have no importance. I am the first mayor in the history of the world to be punished for reciting a prayer."

Sorry, Mr. Mayor, but Christians have been killing each other for 2,000 years for

Why does this keep happening? Virginia school district posts Ten Commandments

Are these people living in the dark ages? Don't they have newspapers and the Internet?

A Virginia school district is restoring the Ten Commandments to their classroom walls in spite of being told by their own lawyers that it's illegal.

There are so many aspects of this that baffle me that it's hard to know where to begin.

Do they really think this is going to convince their children to believe in God and stay in their faith? Is their regular Sunday (and often Wednesday) church not enough?

Don't they have better ways to spend their money ... like on the kids' educations? This is certain to spark a lawsuit

Good News! Druids are Officially Recognized by Britain

Well, it's about time! Druidism (sometimes inaccurately called "tree worshipers") finally became an officially recognized religion in its own homeland. Britain's Charity Commission for England and Wales gave them charity status. Why did it take so long?

Or maybe the more sensible question we should be ask is whether any religion should be given charity status (here in the United States, we call it non-profit status). Why is religion given any special treatment at all?

Here in the USA our Constitution has a special rule

One Nation Under God Stays ... For Now

Our friends over at the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) have lost another small battle in their long war to free us from government intrusion into our religious beliefs.

The FFRF sued the Architect of the Capitol, the government architect responsible for designing the new Capitol Visitor Center in Washington D.C. because the Architect had put "In God We Trust" in the center along with an engraving of the Pledge of Allegiance which contains the words "under God." The case was thrown out on a technicality – FFRF failed to show that it had been financially injured as a taxpayer.

I think the real problem is that no judge wants to be the one to throw out the Pledge. Any judge who had the courage to enforce the plain language of our Constitution

Sexual Revolution: How One Pedophile Destroyed America

I know most of my readers are strong advocates of the wall of separation between church and state, but if you ever had even the slightest doubt, read this article on World Net Daily. It's scary stuff.

They start with the laughable claim that Alfred Kinsey, the sex researcher who pulled us out of the dark ages of sexual repression, was a pedophile. From there, they build a case against every advance we've made about sex and sexuality since 1950, and conclude that our legal system should return to Bible-based laws!

Here is what these ultra-conservative religious nutcases would do:

"Pre-Kinsey, sex laws were based on biblical authority and considered an area of 'public rights,' meaning we recognized sex had civil consequences on society," Reisman said. "Post-Kinsey sex laws are based on 'scientific authority' and are considered 'private rights,' which claims sex has no social consequences."

In other words, if they were in charge, the government would have the right to peek into your bedroom and decide what's legal and what's not.

Montana College Still Holds State-Sponsored Prayers

Montana State University-North doesn't get it. I thought colleges were supposed to be places of higher learning. Don't they teach history and constitutional law there? Don't they read newspapers?

Court after court has ruled that state-funded schools can't sponsor prayers, Montana State University-North wants to hold school-sponsored prayer. They want to keep their Christian prayer (yes, they say it's non-denominational, but we all know it's Christian) in their graduation ceremony, and never mind that many of their students are atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists.

Why, in this day and age, do Christians feel they can use the state or federal government to force their prayers on other people? Is there some reason that their private prayers and their prayers in church are ineffective? Doesn't God listen

What do Indian Grave Robbers and Atheists have in Common?

What does the atheist Dan Barker (head of the Freedom from Religion Foundation) have in common with two American Indian grave robbers who dug up a white person's body? More than you might guess!

Dan and FFRF are in the news again. They're well known for their hard-line stance on the separation of church and state in America. For example, last year the FFRF caused a ruckus when they responded to a Christian display at the Washington State Capitol building with a an atheist sign that closed with, "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." They did it again this year, prompting a lawsuit from an enraged Christian.

What does this have to do with grave robbing? Well, a few years back there was a darkly funny story about two young American Indian men who snuck into a graveyard and dug up a white woman's body, just to show whites how the Indians feel when whites dig up the Indians' ancestors. If whites can dig up Indian bones, why shouldn't Indians be allowed to dig up white people's bones?

This is so obvious it shouldn't have to be stated, yet even today Indian remains are not treated with the dignity that the American Indians' culture requires. Those two young men felt compelled to turn the tables on whites, and actually rob a grave. And quite predictably, there was outrage. But I hope their act of civil disobedience gave at least a few people a new perspective on what it means to desecrate the bodies of American Indians.

And that's exactly what Dan Barker and the FFRF are trying to do with religion in government. All Americans have a right to access their government, without any hint of religious bias. Christians in America are particularly insensitive to how their religion can give offense. Their purportedly innocent nativity scenes look cute and beautiful to a Christian, but to everyone else these displays are shouting, "You're going to HELL to burn FOREVER because you don't believe this cute little baby, who is actually God!"

The "winter solstice" display that the FFRF places alongside the Christian displays is deliberately designed to be edgy, to be slightly offensive. If atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Jains and Buddhists can't walk into their state capitol buildings without passing a "You're going to HELL" display, it's only fair that Christians should be treated to an equal amount of unpleasant rhetoric.

"How do YOU like it when we treat you the same as you treat us?" That's the message that both the FFRF and those two Indians were sending, and I hope both messages sink in. Government and religion should be separate, and it's impossible to mix the two in any way without offending citizens.

(P.S. If anyone can find a link to the news articles about those two American Indians, or correct my memory, please send it along. I googled it a bit but couldn't find that particular story among the thousands of others about whites digging up Indian graves. It was probably ten or twenty years ago.)

Hilarious Quote from Unconstitutional Kentucky Law's Author

Sometimes you have to work to find blog topics, sometimes they just drop in your lap. When an unconstitutional Kentucky law was struck down yesterday, it's author had this to say:

They make the argument ... that it has to do with a religion, and promoting a religion. God is not a religion. God is God.

Got that?? God is not religion, he's just ... God! Wow, I never knew that! If God isn't religion, maybe I can believe in Him even though I'm an atheist!! I feel so much better now!

I haven't laughed out loud at something this idiotic for a few days. This quote is from Kentucky State Rep. Tom Riner, D-Louisville, a pastor of Christ is King Baptist Church in Louisville, and also the man who wrote the law that was struck down.

Riner is so deeply immersed in his Christianity he has utterly and completely accepted God's existence as fact, and can't even recognize the difference between fact and belief any more.

I've written about separation of church and state before (also here), but I'm sure I'll have to write about it again. One of the simple facts about religion is that it thrives if it can force itself on others. The forces of memetic evolution favor religions that survive, regardless of how or why. Churches and religions that meddled with government are the ones that survived and that are still with us today. Churches that stuck to teaching just religion were not so successful. So it's not surprising that many churches, and of course the leaders of these churches, like Tom Riner, have inherited a legacy of meddling with government, a belief system that tells them it's OK to violate the United States Constitution and to behave in an un-American way.