10 Myths About the Separation of Church and State

There are ten standard myths concerning the concept and practice of Separation of Church and State in the United States. They are demonstrably false, and everyone ought to know this already, but it's always a good thing to take a "refresher course" and be reminded of them.

Here, briefly, are the ten major myths about the Separation of Church and State, promoted by the Religious Right. For an extended analysis and solid rebuttal of each of these points, please go to the Americans United for Separation of Church and State website and read Myths Debunked.

1. Separation of church and state isn’t found in the U.S. Constitution. Rather, it is a modern invention of the Supreme Court, a communist idea, something Nazis concocted, etc.
2. The United States was founded to be a Christian nation.
3. Separation of church and state was originally intended to merely bar the creation of a national church.
4. Most of the Founders were evangelical Christians and supported government promulgation of that mode of faith.
5. Mottos like “In God We Trust” on currency and “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are evidence that separation of church and state was never intended.
6. Thanks to separation of church and state, kids can’t pray in public schools.
7. Separation of church and state fosters secularism, which drains religion of its vitality.
8. Separation of church and state means that government must be hostile to religion.
9. Most religious leaders don’t support separation of church and state.
10. Separation of church and state stifles the public voice and presence of religion.

These are myths -- no they are lies -- that are deliberately spread by the Religious Right, and they are harmful to the people who believe them, harmful to the communities where those people live, and harmful to the nation as a whole.

Here is the truth. Fight back!

The "Ministerial Exception"

The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously(!) that people such as teachers in religious schools meet the definition of "ministers" when it comes to having no rights to sue for discrimination.

I wish I knew someone who taught in a religious school (but as you can probably guess, I don't really know anyone like that), because I would talk them into claiming that exception on their income taxes this year. Which means that their entire salary ought to be tax free.

As far as I am concerned, a minister is someone who is ordained (more or less -- different religions have different ways of dealing with that) to "preach" or whatever, minister to the flock, etc. If you are performing a purely secular duty -- such as was the case with the math teacher at the center of this case -- then you are not a minister but just an employee, and if the church that employs you gets Federal money (through the so-called "Faith Based Initiatives" etc.) then they shouldn't be able to sidestep Federal anti-discrimination laws.

In other words, I don't think that churches ought to be able to have it both ways... But what do I know?

Anyway, I am looking forward to a bunch of enterprising church employees using the language of this decision to avoid paying taxes, and we'll be interested in seeing how that goes. Class action suit, anyone?

Georgia Trusts in God

...all others pay cash. Sorry, I couldn't resist the cheap joke.

But seriously folks... The state of Georgia is on track to make all cars have license plates that state, boldly enough, "In God We Trust". Unless you are some kind of commie-leaning atheist and you don't trust in god, in which case you can pay some extra bucks to opt out of the program and have your county's name, emblazoned on a peel-off sticker, to paste over the motto.

You may also recall that our Congress, in the midst of a financial crisis unknown for nearly a century, chose to spend a day revisiting the issue of our national motto. Which is, curiously enough, also spelled "In God We Trust".

And is has been since the 1950s, when the old motto, "E Pluribus Unum", was overthrown. Too foreign-sounding, I guess...

Anyway, to get back to Georgia. I suppose there won't be any ... untoward ... reactions against those who opt out of wearing their religion on their sleeves. Like no noisy neighbors in sheets congregating on your front lawn and using a handy wooden relic as a flaming lantern to light their way and enlighten yours...

This is the one of the stupidest ideas to come out of a part of the country already well known for stupid ideas. It'll likely become law (who wants to come up for re-election this year when your opponent will cite your vote against god in his campaign literature?), and it'll also most likely be struck down by one of those activist judges on the supreme court of Georgia, or in the court of appeals, etc.

I guess it's easier to wear your religion on your sleeve -- or your bumper -- than actually, I don't know, really practicing it. I guess that whole "love your neighbor" and "help the poor" stuff kind of gets a little messy in real life.

Justice Kennedy, You Fucked Up

SCOTUS today issued its long-awaited decision on the controversial Mojave Desert Cross.

That cross, as you will recall, was erected on public land back in the 1930s as a putative "war memorial" -- but since other religions were banned from erecting symbols of their belief along with the cross, it was nothing more than government sponsorship of Christianity.

I've commented before on this particular piece of crap. And now, with today's 5-4 split decision, the high court says that it's just fine to have it there.

Predictably the Four Fascists (Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts) were in the majority, joined by sometime swing vote Kennedy:

"Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens agreed that soldiers who died in battle deserve a memorial to their service. But the government "cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message," Stevens said.
. . .
Kennedy, who usually is in the court's center on church-state issues, suggested there may have been no problem in the first place.
"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm," Kennedy said.

Note to Kennedy: Nobody ever said it did, asshole. And evocative as it may be of all those crosses in military cemeteries, if you look closely you'll see that those crosses are joined by stars of David and other symbols of religion, and they all denote the religious beliefs of the former inhabitants of the bodies buried beneath them.

I'm glad to see that Sotomayor came down on the right side of this issue.

And this is one more reason why we'll miss John Paul Stevens.

The Mojave Cross

I know, it sounds like a western movie title, but a battle is raging in California's Mojave Desert over a cross that was erected as a "veterans memorial" by the VFW back in 1934.

And there it stood mutely for a number of years, out of sight and out of mind.

There was only one small problem with that: It was erected on public land, in what is now the Mojave National Preserve. And, to make matters worse, no other religious group has been "allowed" to erect their own religious memorial on the site.

Okay, fast forward a few years, and now the whole issue has landed squarely in the robed laps of The Supremes, who agreed to hear Salazar v. Buono this coming term.

As a member of several veterans groups (all of them progressive in nature -- I would never join VFW or the American Legion -- nor would they have me, as I think you all could have guessed), I get on some pretty weird email threads.

And today some joker sent me a breathless missive wailing about the tearing down of this symbol of veterans' sacrifices:

OK Folks. Take about 6 minutes and watch this and see what you think??? Amazing how off-base the courts and government can get!!!!!!
THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN AFEW THOUSAND HITS ON THIS VIDEO. IT NEEDS TO BE SEEN BY MANY, MANY MORE PEOPLE. PLEASE SPREAD IT AROUND TO YOUR ENTIRE ADDRESS BOOK. TO THINK ONE INDIVIDUAL, JUST ONE, CAN TAKE A CASE LIKE THIS TO THE CA SUPREME COURT AND GET A HEARING.
WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PREVENT THIS MEMORIAL FROM BEING TORN DOWN.
ACLU insanity EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD SEE THIS VIDEO.
I cannot believe how this can happen in our country....wait until you hear the reason the complaint was started and what it has turned into....

I guess nobody told this asshole that typing in ALL CAPITALS is shouting...But maybe that's what he meant...

Anyway, here's the video:

Note the presence of those slick fuckers from the so-called Liberty Legal Institute, an extremist Religious Right organization, and the smooth production values of this video. Aside from the lies and mudslinging against the ACLU, though, the worst part of it that Liberty has absolutely no qualms about using those ancient veterans, cynically manipulating them into believing that this is about veterans. "A literal slap in the face," one of the Liberty fuckers calls it.

This case, with its abrupt turns and attempts at legal obfuscation, is confusing enough for legal scholars (go ahead and read the summary), let alone the general public. Which is why it's really easy to confuse people and get them to believe something that Liberty wants them to believe.

And finally, it looks as though this will be the first "establishment clause" case that Sotomayor will hear. Let's hope that she's more liberal than she appeared in those "show trial" hearings last week.

Dobson v. Obama

This would be a lot funnier, if it weren't so fucking weird.

The "Reverend" James Dobson, of Focus on the Fetus Family fame, has made some pretty inflammatory accusations against Barack Obama after Obama pointed out some oddities in the so-called "Christian Bible" and said that governing under the principles of the bible would be "impractical".

Impractical? Yeah, to say the least, since the bible, as Obama says, approves slavery and says that eating shellfish is an abomination. There's more; you can read it all for yourself in the Book of Leviticus, and then maybe you can send your own letter to Dobson, the way I sent one to "Doctor" Laura on this same topic...

I think it's abso-fucking-lutely hilarious that Dobson can say, with a straight face, without a trace of irony, "I think he's [Obama] deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," Dobson said, adding that Obama is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter..." and that Obama should not be referencing "antiquated dietary codes" and passages from the Old Testament that are "no longer relevant" to the teachings of the New Testament.

The mind reels, the brain is boggled, the...Jesus, protect me from your followers...words fail me...

This from a man who has made a fucking career of misinterpreting the Xian bible and dismissing that wussy "peace guy" Jesus as some kind of new age hippie weirdo. It's especially mind-boggling when you think that Dobson himself freely quotes from the Old Testament -- in fact the very book of Leviticus -- when he is busy condemning those "ho-mo-sessuals" who are lurking at every turn, demanding their "special" rights...

Now that I think of it, I am going to send that letter to Dobson. I just dropped by Focus's web page and they don't provide an email address (surprise surprise), but this is important enough that I think it deserves a snail-mail letter. I'm sending it off tomorrow to (according to the website):

Focus on the Family
(street address not required)
Colorado Springs, CO 80995

I guess they're pretty fucking important if the PO doesn't even require a street address, eh?

And just in case you didn't click that link, here is the actual text of the actual letter (thanks again to bible-student-cum-snarky-genius J. Kent Ashcraft) I'm going to send to Dobson tomorrow:

Dear Doctor Dobson:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your website and from your various appearances on radio and in the television media, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific Bible laws and how to follow them:

(a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors complain to the zoning people. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

(b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. What do you think would be a fair price for her? She's 18 and starting college. Will the slave buyer be required to continue to pay for her education by law ?

(c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense and threaten to call Human Resources.

(d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? ....Why can't I own Canadians? Is there something wrong with them due to the weather?

(e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood improvement project ? What is a good day to start? Should we begin with small stones? Kind of lead up to it?

(f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. I mean, a shrimp just isn't the same as a you-know-what. Can you settle this?

(g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Would contact lenses fall within some exception?

(h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? The Mafia once took out Albert Anastasia in a barbershop, but I'm not Catholic; is this ecumenical thing a sign that it's ok?

(i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

(j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple.

Winston Smith Farnsworth

I will let you know when -- and if -- I get a response.