Religion

by

Kim Davis Comes Out of the Closet

Kim Davis, the Kentucky Clerk who has been lauded by conservative religious groups all over for her brave stand against equality in marriage, has finally come out of the closet and has gone through a transformation.

“I had been living a lie all those years,” she said. “While on the surface, I appeared as one thing to everyone, deep down inside I knew that my core being was completely different.”635768272291820336-same

She was one of the lucky ones who had friends who approved of her becoming “trans” and actively encouraged it. “We’re so happy for her,” said one Christian backer, showing the love and understanding that Jesus encouraged.

“It was difficult, but I have to admit that based on the inner desires I have, I can no longer deny who I am,” Davis said. “Yes, it is true. I am a Republican.”

The Republican party, with its goal of inequality and intolerance for those it deems sinful in the eyes of a book written thousands of years ago by ignorant shepherds, welcomed her with open arms. “Finally, at last, Ms. Davis can be who she really is, free from discrimination, and welcome in society without fear of being treated with hatred,” said a local GOP leader, adding, “I mean, it’s not like she’s one of those goddamn fags, after all.”

by

Answering Your Legal Questions about that Kentucky Clerk

I really didn’t want to write more about Kim Davis, the Kentucky Clerk who refuses to issue legal marriage licenses to people she is bigoted against … but she just won’t go away. People keep emailing me about the case.  So let’s answer a few legal questions.

Has she broken the law? No, she has not “broken the law” in the strictest sense.  What she did was refuse to do her job for religious reasons and ordered everyone in her office to refuse too. As someone pointed out, this would be like having a Jewish postmaster who feels that delivering Christmas Cards was against his religion, so he orders all the mail carriers under him to not deliver any of these cards. Or maybe a better example is a Muslim clerk at the DMV who doesn’t believe women should drive and so prevents any licenses to be issued to women.

Kim Davis and the Constitutional scholars she relies upon

Kim Davis and the Constitutional scholars she relies upon

Kim Davis is not following the law. This denied basic civil rights to citizens who were entitled to them. The judge ordered her to give people what they are entitled to under the law. She refused, and got to see the jail from the inside.

But there really isn’t a “law” to allow gay marriage, is there?  Her idiot supporters argue with a straight face that there is no “law” allowing gay marriage and therefore she is doing nothing wrong. I have no idea what this stupid argument means. There is a law providing for marriage, and the Supreme Court has said that the law must be applied without discriminating. There is also no “law” that specifically says a marriage is allowed between different races, yet no one thinks this Clerk could refuse to issue one, do they?

This argument comes from morons like Mike Huckabee, who wants to swear an oath to the Constitution but has apparently never read it. He argues with a straight face that since the legislature never passed a law allowing gay marriage, the Supreme Court didn’t have the right to make the decision in the first place and therefore we can all ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling. This is the kind of argument that we lawyers refer to in our legalese way as “bullshit.”

Can she fire the clerk who is issuing these licenses? Fortunately, one of the Clerks in her office has stated that he will continue to issue marriages to anyone eligible even if she comes back and orders him not to (as she has vowed to do in her loving, Christian way). Can she fire him? Sure, but would it be a legal firing? Probably not. How can you justify firing someone who did their job when you ordered them not to? He’d have a pretty good case against the state for an unjust firing. (Since this is Kentucky, I can be fairly sure these people aren’t unionized like they are in my area.)

Can she cancel the licenses her office has given out already? No. She doesn’t have a job that allows her discretion. If you are eligible for a license, you get one.

She may try, of course, and I think that will not be appreciated by the judge.

Can she go back to jail, and how long can she stay there? She is out of jail now, because the judge assumes she will either do her job or allow others to do their job. If she still refuses to do so, the judge will probably send her back to jail. That’s what Contempt is for — they’re not meant to be punishment, but instead to force people to do what they are supposed to do.

You might recall cases where journalists refused to reveal their sources and were held in contempt. Some stayed in jail for months.

How can we get rid of her? The only way to get rid of this elected person is to impeach her. This is Kentucky, so that’s probably not going to happen, any more than Alabama would have impeached George Wallace when he disobeyed the courts to block black children from going to school with white children 50 years ago. The judge cannot force the legislature to do this; all he can do is keep jailing her if she refuses to obey his orders.

Why are her lawyers doing this? Davis’ lawyers are a bunch of right-wing hacks supported by a lobbying group that is propping her up to use as a fundraising measure. Their briefs have little law in them and read more like the kind of rants you see on crazy blogs that talk about “God’s Law” ruling over secular law. They probably know they have no legal basis for their appeals and so instead are writing what their donors want to read. That way, when the judge rules against them, they can argue that he is “denying God.” Ca-ching! More donations. Appealing to bigotry has become quite profitable lately, you know.

Her own lawyers have to know she will never be successful. A recent legal panel on Fox unanimously was against her, calling her lawyer “incredibly stupid.” (Yes, I did say “Fox” — not a mistake.) When even the experts at Fox News are against you…

Why is there a double standard when Obama violates the Constitution all the time and gets away with it? Seriously, people ask this, and usually their definition of “violating the Constitution” boils down to “does stuff I don’t like.” Some people know in their hearts what the Constitution says and means without that pesky need to actually learn anything about it (in much the same way Kim Davis has done with the Bible).

Is the judge some sort of liberal crusader?  No. The judge is a conservative Republican, appointed by George W. Bush. He probably doesn’t support gay marriage, but he does support the law. You gotta admire him for that.

by

The Difference Between the Clerk and the Flight Attendant

Elected county clerk Kim Davis is currently sitting in jail for disobeying a court order to issue marriage licenses.18676679-mmmain

Meanwhile, a Muslim flight attendant has been suspended for refusing to serve alcohol.

Let’s first note that not one of Davis’ supporters has rallied around the Muslim woman’s cause. That’s because Kim Davis’ fight really isn’t for “religious freedom” — it’s all about taking away freedom. It’s the bigot’s last breath in their always-losing battle to take away the rights of people different from them. Kim Davis is not Rosa Parks as she claims — she’s the bus driver who told Rosa Parks to get out of her seat.

So is the Muslim flight attendant in the same situation or not?  Should we be telling her that she should lose her job if she refuses to do it?

Well, there are some big differences between the two.

The flight attendant is arguing that the employer needs to make reasonable accommodations for her religious beliefs, and that is what the current law holds.  She points out that serving alcohol is just a small part of her job and that there are other flight attendants there who could easily do that for her whenever a need arises.

And that’s a good point. It’s not like she applied to be a bartender and then claimed she couldn’t do the work.

There’s nothing wrong with firing someone if they cannot do the work at all because of their religion. For instance, a Catholic school could refuse to hire an atheist to teach a Bible Study class which includes prayer, because being a Catholic is a job requirement. (They can’t refuse to hire an atheist to teach a math class, however.)

Kim Davis has the right to say “I refuse to sign any marriage documents for gay couples” while allowing others in her office to do it. But she isn’t doing that. She is ordering the other clerks in her office to refuse as well, and since she’s the boss, they are obeying her. (Now that she’s in jail and no longer the boss, they are issuing the licenses, by the way.)

And that’s the main difference. We can accommodate Kim Davis’ religious beliefs, but that’s not what she wants. She wants to force everyone else to live by her beliefs.

The flight attendant is not demanding that no one on the plane can drink because of her personal religious beliefs.

by

The ends (exposing religious hypocrites) doesn’t justify the means (exposing private encounters)

Yes, yes, “family activist” Josh Dugger, the hypocrite who said gays are immoral while he was molesting his sisters, was one of the names that appeared on the hacked list from the Ashley Madison web page — like we didn’t expect something like that was coming, anyway.  It’s always the loudest self-righteous ones who turn out to be committing the same “sins” they rally against.

I had never heard of Ashley Madison until it was announced that there had been a major hacking. The site is where people can go for secret hookups so they could cheat on their spouses. Recently, someone posted a list of their members.

Forget the fact that Dugger was there. I’m sure other prominent names may soon show up. While I am always thrilled when hypocrites are exposed, I cannot endorse the method by which this happened.ashley

The vast majority of people on that list are not celebrities. They aren’t people who publicly shamed others while doing the same thing. They aren’t people who deserve to be exposed.

Some of them may have been in relationships that had already fallen apart. Maybe they were separated from their spouses. Maybe they were in an open marriage and the spouse already knew about it. And maybe it’s none of our damned business what private people do in the privacy of their lives with other consenting adults so long as they aren’t physically hurting another or breaking the law.

So would I support the hacking if it was just Dugger being exposed? Interesting question. On one hand, when you voluntarily throw yourself out in public, you don’t have the right to demand “privacy” in the same way the average person does. And if you’re a lying scum, you deserve to be exposed. On the other hand, two wrongs don’t make a right, and the hacking crime means that a business that was legitimate (as much as you may not like it) has been attacked and ruined for that. People will certainly think twice before giving their information to them again. (If it helps you understand why this is bad, pretend it was Target or some place you regularly shop instead of a sex site — would you continue to shop there knowing your information could be stolen?)

Meanwhile, speaking of Dugger, how about that Jared from Subway guy, huh?  Too bad he’s not friends with Republican candidate Mike Huckabee like Dugger is, because then God could forgive him and he’d walk away free.

by

Atheists are “intolerant”?

Often, religious folks complain that atheists are “intolerant” towards their religion.

Strangely enough, these atheists seem to be only “intolerant” toward Christians. Why is that?god

Well, Jews aren’t trying to pass laws banning bacon.

Muslims aren’t trying to pass laws forcing women to wear veils.

Amish aren’t trying to pass laws to make us give up electricity.

Wiccans aren’t trying to make us say “One Nation, under the Goddess.”

But some Christians want to ban all abortions, make gay marriage illegal, restrict contraception, edit history books, enforce prayer in schools, and all because of their religious beliefs.

So when atheists say “No” to them, that’s not intolerance. That’s fighting against tyranny. That’s standing up for what America was founded on — freedom to believe or not believe. To have a secular country.

All the atheist “fights” are defensive. Atheists are not doing a thing to prevent religious people from practicing their religion however they want to. They’re just trying to stop them from making us all do it.

EDITED for clarification:  I mean legal and political fights, not arguments and debates.  

by

Judge Enforces Sharia Law in America

An activist radical Muslim judge here in America has just used his religious views to force a defendant into an arranged marriage as well as demand that the defendant write out verses from the Quran as punishment.

“Get married within 30 days or do 15 days in jail” was the Judge’s Order.sharialaw1

The bride who was forced into this arrangement was quite unhappy with this as well, complaining that while she might have been willing to marry the man, they would never be able to have a nice wedding like she had hoped. The Judge didn’t care.

The Judge used his Muslim religion to force the man to read the Quran as well.

This is Sharia Law at its worst; it’s exactly what we were told would happen when we allow the government to force religion on us, and all good Christians — nay, all good Americans should be outraged.

No. Wait.

I’m sorry. I got a fact wrong.

The Judge was a Christian and he made the man copy verses from the Bible instead.

Well, surely all Christians should be just as outraged by this, right? If it’s wrong for the government to endorse one religion, it’s wrong for another as well, isn’t it?

(Insert sounds of crickets chirping and visual of tumbleweed rolling across an empty plain)

by

“As long as it’s our religion doing it, it’s OK”

As expected, there have been plenty of proclamations from religious extremists about the upcoming end of the world. They think God will judge the US harshly for allowing people in love to get married. Slavery? Killing of natives? Internment camps? Nope, those didn’t attract God’s judgment, but this will.

Catholic priests are saying, without a hint of irony, that this decision will cause children to be sexually molested. Various commentators are once again floating the “Now we have to allow people to marry their pets” argument because, as we all know, whenever new rights are gained, logically we have to extend them to animals next. That’s why dogs have the right to vote.

Then there was that “friend” on Facebook who said, “Since sin is now legal, murder will be next.” Yes, of course. The two are absolutely comparable. There’s just no way to refute such logic.

I’ve stopped trying to argue with True Believers whenever possible (including the gun nuts, the 9/11 “Truthers”, the various conspiracy-minded among us). But what bugs me the most is when they can’t even see the basic irony in their own arguments.

These Christians are almost always the ones screaming about how terrible it is that Sharia Law could be used in America.  Sharia Law has many things in common with evangelistic Christian law — a prohibition against gay marriage, admonitions about women being subservient to men, and so on — but if anyone tried to use the Quran to pass these into our laws, these Christians would be up in arms.

But it’s not because they’re against forcing religious laws upon America — they just want it to be their religion we’re all forced to follow.

by

The mystery of religious belief that we’re special

Back when most current religions were in their infancy, we thought we were the center of the universe. We had no idea what stars and planets really were, and in some cases, didn’t even realize the world was round. And that world? It was only a few thousand years old.

Now we know that we are one of trillions of planets, surrounding billions of stars in millions of galaxies. We know that the planet is billions of years old, dinosaurs ruled the planet for about 200 million years, and humans have only been around for a few hundred thousand.

So among the many questions I often ponder is how rational, intelligent people who still believe in these religions interpret this? Why did God create such an amazingly expansive universe and then stick us way out in the suburbs of some minor galaxy? Why did he wait trillions of years before creating the earth if it is where his chosen people were to live? Why did he allow dinosaurs to roam for the vast majority of the time on the earth before getting around to creating us in his own image?

Oh, I know that believers will find a way to rationalize this in the same way they can believe in some of the Bible 100% but 0% in the parts they don’t like, picking and choosing “ultimate truths” like options on a Chinese menu. Time means nothing to God; where he placed us is irrelevant, and so on. So why even create all this extra stuff to begin with?

I mean, if I wanted to play The Sims and create people, I could make an area for them all to live easily enough. Why would I then waste time creating 99.99999999999999999999999% space that these people will never use?

Often religious people will call atheists self-centered for not believing, but I have often wondered about someone who thinks that we are special in a universe that is vast and has existed for billions of years — how is that not self-centered?

The ability of people whose intellects I admire to rationalize all of this — well, that’s the biggest mystery of all.

by

Indiana’s “Religious Freedom” law is different

The outcry over Indiana’s new law allowing discrimination is valid. Arguments that “other states have similar laws” is not.

Many states have religious freedom laws, and they’re good laws. They prohibit the government from interfering with one’s religious practice, as provided for in the 1st Amendment.bigots For instance, such laws protect a Catholic school that only wants to hire Catholics to teach their classes. That makes sense, doesn’t it? It’s the same concept that says a church cannot be forced to perform a marriage they disagree with. These laws often apply to various non-profit charities and businesses where it makes a difference who gets treated and/or employed. Charities often have religious foundations, for instance.

Indiana’s law is different.  Indiana’s law explicitly allows for-profit businesses to have these same rights. Thus, Jim-Bob’s restaurant is allowed under this law to discriminate when it violates Jim-Bob’s personal religious views. “Sorry, my religion says no coloreds can sit at my lunch counter.” (This, of course, is exactly what we predicted would happen when the Supreme Court decided the terrible Hobby Lobby case, giving corporations a religion.)

This is unprecedented. Here in Pennsylvania, for instance, our “religious freedom” law specifically prohibits for-profit businesses from doing this.

If you want to open a business, you need to open it to everyone. Don’t give me that tired libertarian argument that the marketplace will solve this. It didn’t do that for a hundred years before civil rights laws were passed, and clearly it is not doing that now or else we wouldn’t even be discussing this. In some small communities, there may only be one store within close distance, so don’t go arguing that this is a minor inconvenience.

Bigotry has no place in our laws, and the government should be supporting the people who are being discriminated against, and not those who wish to discriminate.

by

But Sharia Law Wants the Same Thing…

Not too long ago, Alabama residents passed a law saying that Sharia Law will never become part of Alabama’s laws, by gum, despite the fact that it would never happen anyway and such a thing is already prohibited by the Constitution which, you know, has been around for 225 years or so. There’s that very first amendment which clearly prohibits the establishment of any religious law in the country.  MOORE TEN COMMANDMENTS

But gosh darn it, the Founding Fathers didn’t mean to include Christian law! That’s a whole ‘nother thing! (Secret answer: Yes they did, in very specific terms.)

Judge Roy Moore is a shining example of how one can graduate law school and still be as stupid about the law as the day you go in. He’s the guy you may remember who was slapped down by the federal courts and lost his job because he installed a huge monument to the Ten Commandments in the courthouse.

Down there in Alabama, however, they’re still fighting the Civil War. They won’t acknowledge that the Constitution applies to them. So they said “screw you, yankees” and surrounded Judge Moore with the traditional flag of Traitors to This Country (the Confederate one) and praised him mightily. They then elected him to the Alabama Supreme Court, where he now is telling people that despite the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, they don’t have to accept gay marriage in Alabama because God’s law supercedes the Constitution.

He just don’t learn, do he?  “This power over marriage, which came from God under our organic law, is not to be redefined by the United States Supreme Court or any federal court,” Justice Moore told “Fox News Sunday.”  This raises an important question: Is organic law free-range?*

The federal courts have said “Nuh uh” and many of the lower courts in Alabama are now allowing people in love to get married, despite statues of Jesus weeping all over Montgomery. Moore still insists that his god told him to hate gay people, and that was more important than a federal judge.

I can’t wait for the Contempt charges to be filed against this guy. Pass the popcorn!

The ironic part of all of this? Sharia Law also prohibits gay marriage. So it’s not the result of the law that is important to them — it’s which god gets to decide it.

 

*Trick question!  There is no such thing as “organic law” except what Judge Moore pulled out of his ass.