Everyone is outraged by Paladino’s homophobic and outdated statements on Sunday when he visited Hasidic leaders in Brooklyn.  I am as well, but there’s actually more than the homophobic remarks and the hypocrisy to be outraged about.

As a Jew, I am outraged that the rabbis seek to apply a single line in Leviticus to all of the men in society, when Judaism and the wisdom of the rabbis make it clear that none of the Levitical laws apply to gentiles.  In traditional Jewish thought, only the laws given to Noah apply universally.  Why should Jewish groups even venture an opinion about the civil rights and civil marriages of anyone outside Judaism?  Let them focus instead on the role of Jews in social justice.

As a Jewish woman, I am further outraged by the exclusion of women from Sunday’s discussion.

Religious reasons, the Post reported, barred women from covering the Paladino event at a synagogue in Brooklyn.

So, stop right there. Carl Paladino is apparently cool with the fact that representatives of more than half of the nation’s population are excluded from doing their jobs and covering an event featuring one of the two major parties’ candidates for governor of the nation’s third-most-populous state? Excluded female journalists, the Post reported, had to stay outside on the sidewalk, where they had insult added to injury when someone dumped water on them.

…..

Why would Carl Paladino — who this spring sent out an e-mail of a video of a woman having sex with a horse, a move for which he later apologized — evidently have no problem giving a speech at an event at a venue that allowed male journalists but excluded female journalists?
via the LATimes

In Orthodox synagogues, men and women sit separately, but women can hear and often see everything that transpires.  In prayer.  Sometimes in study.  But not in political discussions.  And moving women outside the building?  Absolutely unthinkable.  Women in Orthodoxy have civil rights and are encouraged to vote in civil elections.

In Orthodox synagogues, you will also find a separate section where the women sit. This may be on an upper floor balcony, or in the back of the room, or on the side of the room, separated from the men’s section by a wall or curtain called a mechitzah. Men are not permitted to pray in the presence of women, because they are supposed to have their minds on their prayers, not on pretty girls.

Men and women together heard the revelation at Mount Sinai.  To be allowed to hear Jewish law but then be excluded from matters of electoral politics in the secular world is unfair, inconsistent with halakha (Jewish law), and a sign of how far outside the mainstream of traditional Judaism these rabbis and their senatorial candidate really are.

According to traditional Judaism, women are endowed with a greater degree of “binah” (intuition, understanding, intelligence) than men. The rabbis inferred this from the fact that woman was “built” (Gen. 2:22) rather than “formed” (Gen. 2:7), and the Hebrew root of “build” has the same consonants as the word “binah.” It has been said that the matriarchs (Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah) were superior to the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) in prophecy. Women did not participate in the idolatry regarding the Golden Calf. See Rosh Chodesh below. Some traditional sources suggest that women are closer to G-d’s ideal than men. Women have held positions of respect in Judaism since biblical times. Miriam is considered one of the liberators of the Children of Israel, along with her brothers Moses and Aaron. One of the Judges (Deborah) was a woman.

Seven of the 55 prophets of the Bible were women (they are included in the list of biblical prophets). The Ten Commandments require respect for both mother and father. Note that the father comes first in Ex. 20:12, but the mother comes first in Lev. 19:3, and many traditional sources point out that this reversal is intended to show that both parents are equally entitled to honor and reverence.

Why were women excluded from a secular event at which a non-Jewish adulterous politician was honored and non-Jewish male members of the press were invited?  And what does this detail from the New York Post say about the extremism of the groups Paladino associates himself with?

Female reporters and photographers were banned from covering Carl Paladino’s anti-gay speech at the Karlsburg Synagogue in Borough Park, Brooklyn — for religious reasons, according to the Hasidic group that prays there. While the event was going on, some women on the upper floors of the building dumped water on the banned journalists. “Hey, this is a $25,000 camera!” yelled one NY1 reporter.



You may have YOUR faith just up until the moment that it invades my faith or my family’s faith. Then, watch out!

Confirmed, Mormon Web site shows Obama’s mother as baptized after death

from AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth by John Aravosis (DC)

A Provo, Utah newspaper has confirmed our earlier story – a Mormon geneological Web site does in fact list President Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, as having been baptized into the Mormon faith after her death (and presumably without her, or her son’s, consent). The Mormon church has yet to respond to numerous reporters’ inquiries whether they did in fact baptize the President’s dead mother last year in the middle of the presidential campaign. If true, and it’s looking increasingly likely, this could cause the Mormons quite a bit of trouble politically and in the public relations sphere.

Still unanswered is whether the Mormons also baptized Obama’s father.

More from the Provo Herald Extra:

At the same time that Barack Obama sealed the Democratic nomination for president last year, someone in the Provo LDS Church temple was performing a baptism and temple rites for his dead mother.

The move is a serious breech of protocol for church members, who in the past have been criticized for performing such proxy baptisms for victims of the Holocaust.
“Church members are specifically instructed not to submit the names of persons not related to them,” reads a statement on the LDS Chuch Web site. “Before performing temple baptisms for a deceased family member born within the last 95 years, members are instructed to get permission from the person’s closest living relative.”

Officials of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have yet to confirm the incident, but records on their FamilySearch.org genealogical site clearly show that Stanley Ann Dunham received proxy rites in the Provo temple on June 4 and June 8 of 2008. The birth and death dates of the person for whom the rites were performed match those of Obama’s mother.

Also from Americablog,
(more…)

I’m a big fan of religion, when it’s practiced for spiritual and culturial purposes, but no fan at all of hypocrisy.

Mel Gibson’s family values

from Salon by Frances Kissling

The ultra-orthodox Catholic can’t get remarried in the church unless he says he made a “mistake” and gets an annulment — after a 28-year marriage. Time to reform Catholic divorce.

Delegating tasks to teenagers? Check. Delegating the filing to someone who can reach all the drawers? Whenever possible. Delegating exercise? Always. Delegating prayer? What’s the point!

And yet, you can now get a computer to pray on your behalf.

For a fee.

A hefty fee.

Read on.

(more…)

Since internal shame and guilt have not yet fixed the problem, some forces from outside of religious communities are needed to put a stop to child abuse under the guise of religion, and also a stop to the practice of not holding abusers responsible for their actions.

As a Jewish educator, as a secular educator, I become excited and enamored with the learning, the ideas, the questions, the excitement that my students bring to their learning. I’ve been told that my face and demeanor change when I work with kids, or when I talk about something I saw in a classroom. For many of us, that was the hook that got us to try classroom or informal teaching, and to stay.

But there are many in our profession who admire different aspects of the students, and who are far more interested in the students’ physical than intellectual or spiritual development. These people, even if they never act, are dangerous to the students in their charge and dangerous to the profession. If they do act on their sexual attractions, they cause far-reaching and incalculable damage, and should be punished as sexual predators by the authorities. Even if it damages the reputation of the school or agency. Even if it costs money to settle lawsuits.

Let me stop rambling and present some of the facts that are being debated in New York right now.

(more…)

These are two halves of an interview I did with Barbara O’brien, proprietor of the Maha Blog. I interviewed her in July 2007 at Yearly Kos 2 and the interviews were later broadcast on the Head On Radio Network.

The topics of our discussion were religiosity and secularism, and how religion is viewed by the left and the right and the media in this country. All very timely in light of all of the controversy surrounding Right Wing Extremist Rick Warren’s scheduled invocation at President Obama’s inauguration. Here’s Maha’s take on that particular invitation.

barbara obrien interview part 1

barbara obrien part 2

Please note that this is the raw audio, before the ummms and uhhhhs were removed. No idea where in the HORN archives to find the edited versions.

Or anti-all-religions-except-Christianity?

Ga. judge jails Muslim woman over head scarf

Ga. judge orders Muslim woman arrested for refusing to remove her headscarf to enter court

By DIONNE WALKER Associated Press Writer | AP

Dec 17, 2008

(ATLANTA) A Muslim woman arrested for refusing to take off her head scarf at a courthouse security checkpoint said Wednesday that she felt her human and civil rights were violated.

A judge ordered Lisa Valentine, 40, to serve 10 days in jail for contempt of court, said police in Douglasville, a city of about 20,000 people on Atlanta’s west suburban outskirts.

Valentine violated a court policy that prohibits people from wearing any headgear in court, police said after they arrested her Tuesday.

Valentine, who recently moved to Georgia from Connecticut, said the incident reminded her of stories she’d heard of the civil rights-era South.

“I just felt stripped of my civil, my human rights,” she said Wednesday from her home. She said she was unexpectedly released after the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations urged federal authorities to investigate the incident as well as others in Georgia.

Jail officials declined to say why she was freed and municipal Court Judge Keith Rollins said that “it would not be appropriate” for him to comment on the case.

I have quite a few Orthodox Jewish friends who cover all of their hair outside of their homes, or when men (other than husband) are present. Most use scarves at times, occasional wigs, or other types of snoods or head covers. I also have two Muslim friends who wear head scarves. And they’re all American and should have ever right to enter a US courthouse, EVEN in Georgia. Jail? WTF?

Just got off the phone with my folks. They live in an Orthodox Jewish community in New Jersey and told me a story that has not made the news. One of their neighbors has a ninth grader who attends an Orthodox Jewish school and reports that one of her classmates said recently that Obama should be assassinated. Disturbed? I am. But not nearly as upset as when I heard that the teacher’s reply was “My thumb’s up.”

The 9th grade neighbor of my parents was quite upset, but her mother (an Obama supporter) wasn’t sure how to deal with it. In the end, she decided to email the school and tell them the comment, but refused to say which teacher had threatened our president-elect. Apparently, she didn’t want to get the teacher in trouble.

Me? I would have called the secret service. My parents would have marched into the school and demanded that the teacher be fired. As I pointed out on the phone, there’s rather a large difference between voting against a candidate and publicly advocating their assassination to a group of teenagers!

I wonder how many other Jewish, Muslim and Christian schools this has played out in. Of course very few of them make the news. Below is Exhibit A why they’re not publicized.

from one of my comments last night:

The vatican wants to know. Really.

Priests to face ‘sex drive tests’

from BBC World

Pope Benedict XVI has approved the new guidance

The Vatican wants prospective Catholic priests to be psychologically tested to identify those unable to control their sexual urges.

A senior churchman said a series of sex scandals had contributed to the rewriting of the guidelines.

The authors said screening would help avoid “tragic situations” caused by what they termed psychological defects.

The guidance says the voluntary tests should also aim to vet for those with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies”.

Among other traits that might make a candidate unsuitable for the priesthood, the advice lists “uncertain sexual identity,” “excessive rigidity of character” and “strong affective dependencies”.

The document also makes reference to heterosexual urges.

Seminarians should be barred if testing makes it “evident the candidate has difficulty living in celibacy: That is, if celibacy for him is lived as a burden so heavy that it compromises his affective and relational equilibrium”, it says.

The advice stipulates priests must have a “positive and stable sense of one’s masculine identity”.

The document, approved by Pope Benedict XVI and made public on Thursday, stresses that the screening must always have the candidate’s consent.

The Catholic Church has been rocked by a series of sex scandals in recent years involving paedophile priests, notably in the US, Latin America and Europe, triggering lawsuits that have cost hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements.

And a seminary in Austria was shut down in August 2004 after revelations that students openly indulged in homosexual conduct.

Gay rights groups have accused the Church of using homosexuals as scapegoats for abuse scandals.

The Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP), a US-based group of victims of sexual abuse, said the revised guidelines did not go far enough.

“Catholic officials continue to fixate on the offenders and ignore the larger problem: The Church’s virtually unchanged culture of secrecy and unchecked power in the hierarchy,” it said in a statement.

“These broader factors are deeply rooted in the Church and contribute heavily to extensive and ongoing clergy sex abuse and cover up.”

Will psychological tests help with this sort of thing? Will they also be looking for pedophelia? Tendency to masturbate? Fetishes?

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

I believe it is relatively clear that our European allies, especially Great Britain, live in more secular societies than we do here in America. Especially where Great Britain is concerned, there’s a significant amount of irony involved in such progressivism: our founding families fled such places because of religious oppression at great personal risk, and a couple of hundred years later elements of our own government desire a steadfast adherence to religious edicts, and already have systems in place by which non-Christian business and organizations are disallowed participation in certain government-sanctioned areas of business. It’s ironic, and of course from my perspective, it’s considerably depressing. I believe the story of the American Revolution—pretty much all the stories of the American Revolution, in fact—is a grand tale of personal commitment, courage in the face of imminent threat, and indeed, the fundamental precepts of honor, perseverance, and integrity.

Of those, it is integrity which bothers me in this seemingly continual struggle for religious domination of our government. For the desire for religious domination is promoted as Americanism when it is, in fact, one of the most extreme of un-American acts that can be perpetrated on the populace outside of mass murder. The lack of self-integrity that it constitutes is also troubling for me, because the individuals who promote the redefinition of America as a “Christian Nation” are those who set themselves as examples of good behavior to the rest of us. Setting aside the fact that dogmatic belief in biblical stories is a nefarious form of delusion (and self-delusion, to boot), they cherry-pick their own religious doctrine in the attempt to make their desires real.

I once considered running for a local political office. After two days of discussions with local Party officials, I was finally contacted by the State Democratic Party and told in no uncertain terms that they would not support me as long as I refused to attend church. In other words, unless I was willing to violate my sense of self-integrity, I wasn’t a solid enough candidate in their minds to support. I lacked the personal funds (and the time, to be honest), to aggressively compete against the individual who sponsored the anti-abortion legislation that was so controversial on the national circuit (South Dakota’s Proposition 6), and even though the state party abhorred both the policy and the man, they simply weren’t willing to fight him from the opposite religious extreme. And as an already-established dynamic member of my community, heaven forbid that I would have brought some logic, critical thinking, and personal insight to the matter (the personal insight being that I was adopted and had a child placed for adoption and was in contact with my daughter from a previous relationship, whom i didn’t get to raise).

While I found this personally offensive, the concept wasn’t hard to understand. Even a cursory view of politics today shows how intrinsically it is tied to religion. Political candidates take great pride, it seems, in opportunities to speak at churches, and are generally careful to show themselves as supposedly-honorable members of their religious communities. Beyond that, in many locations, voting is done at the local church, although I don’t protest this too much, for in many small communities, the local church also serves as the community center, and hosting elections there is a more than just a matter of convenience or even preference. And yet, as a self-proclaimed agnostic atheist (I don’t view atheism as a religion, in other words, nor do “practice” atheism dogmatically), one of the things that I wish candidates wouldn’t do is pander to this presumed need. There are, after all, over 30,000 separate Christian denominations in the world. Pandering to one offends another, and I think, shows a that a supposed leader is incapable to effectively lead, resorting instead to the appearance of conformance to a relative minority of the voting public.

If candidates approached this issue logically, I don’t think they’d stoop to the church-hosted photo-ops. To the critical-thinking crowd (many of whom, in certain terms, actually exist in the religious crowd, too), the demonstration of a limited world-view, a relatively intolerant mindset, and a dependency on rote superstition should be quite unattractive. As well, the explicit deference to a minority (and active, participating Christians ARE a minority in this country) should be no more acceptable to the logical mind than the undue influence by any other political lobby. And the critical-thinking crowd shouldn’t be afraid to ask pointed questions to their candidates. Why should we allow such candidates to lead us? Why must we invest our own forms of faith in the good behavior and ethical conduct of those who show, time and time again, the willingness to defer to delusional thinking? Should we ever have to define the “best” candidate in terms of the admirable qualities that they lack? In many ways, those are unfortunately rhetorical questions. The status quo, after all, is a difficult thing to circumvent, let alone redefine. But I fear that if we do not manage to do some day, that even under progressive or liberal control, we will find ourselves living in a Christian State, rife with intolerance and dedicated on converting the world. And when that day comes, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

And to bring this back to the title, the real problem with this is basically just visual. On the left side of the political aisle, you know these aren’t the types of people hell-bent on changing the Constitution to make this a Christian Nation, or even personally dedicated to “saving” all the people of the world. But as such, the very appearance of their deference to these ideals, the very appearance that they take the teachings of their religions seriously, creates a logical disconnect from which it is almost impossible for the likes of me to step aside. I respect and even admire their personal faith, but the mere appearance of a need to even make religion an issue in today’s world is simply silly to me. Even when I was a steadfast, devout conservative Christian (yes, I was, once upon a time), I still had many questions and problems voting for candidates whom I didn’t think I could trust to uphold our rights and protect our freedoms simply on the basis of our citizenship, which is exactly how it’s supposed to be.

Technorati Tags:
1. blog against theocracy
2. anti-theocracy
3. religious hegemony
4. separation of church and state

cross-posted to synthaetica.com under my other pseudonym, “Synthaetica”. coming up next: Easter celebrations in the otherwhirled!

This is my second year of participation in Blog Against Theocracy, hosted by Tengrain. This article will be cross-posted there. I am proud to be a participant and encourage you to visit Tengrain’s blog to read other articles posted there by many other bloggers. Yesterday I defined theocracy and looked at secular reasons to oppose it in this article. Today, I wish to take a different approach. In Matthew 7:17, Jesus said that we can recognize authentic believers by their fruit. So it is certainly legitimate to consider the fruit of theocracy. One of the best measures of that is the treatment of outcasts, who Jesus gathered to himself.

We so have a time in history in which the sacred authorities were at least equal to the secular, and for much of it, Western Europe can be considered a virtual theocracy from the fall of the Roman Empire to the Enlightenment. We’ll go back a little earlier for context. One group that was considered outcasts throughout that time was Jews. Here is the fruit of theocracy where Jews are concerned:

325: The Council of Nicea decided to separate the celebration of Easter from the Jewish Passover. They stated: “For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people…We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews…our worship follows a…more convenient course…we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews…How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded.”

337: Christian Emperor Constantius created a law which made the marriage of a Jewish man to a Christian punishable by death.

339: Converting to Judaism became a criminal offense.

343-381: The Laodicean Synod approved Cannon XXXVIII: “It is not lawful [for Christians] to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety.”

367 – 376: St. Hilary of Poitiers referred to Jews as a perverse people who God has cursed forever. St. Ephroem refers to synagogues as brothels.

379-395: Emperor Theodosius the Great permitted the destruction of synagogues if it served a religious purpose. Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire at this time.

380: The bishop of Milan was responsible for the burning of a synagogue; he referred to it as “an act pleasing to God.”

415: The Bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril, expelled the Jews from that Egyptian city.

415: St. Augustine wrote “The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus.”

418: St. Jerome, who created the Vulgate translation of the Bible wrote of a synagogue: “If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil’s refuge, Satan’s fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever you will, you are still saying less than it deserves.”

489 – 519: Christian mobs destroyed the synagogues in Antioch, Daphne (near Antioch) and Ravenna.

528: Emperor Justinian (527-564) passed the Justinian Code. It prohibited Jews from building synagogues, reading the Bible in Hebrew, assemble in public, celebrate Passover before Easter, and testify against Christians in court. 3

535: The “Synod of Claremont decreed that Jews could not hold public office or have authority over Christians.” 3

538: The 3rd and 4th Councils of Orleans prohibited Jews from appearing in public during the Easter season. Canon XXX decreed that “From the Thursday before Easter for four days, Jews may not appear in the company of Christians.” 5 Marriages between Christians and Jews were prohibited. Christians were prohibited from converting to Judaism. 4

561: The bishop of Uzes expelled Jews from his diocese in France.

612: Jews were not allowed to own land, to be farmers or enter certain trades.

613: Very serious persecution began in Spain. Jews were given the options of either leaving Spain or converting to Christianity. Jewish children over 6 years of age were taken from their parents and given a Christian education

692: Cannnon II of the Quinisext Council stated: “Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman, let him be cut off.”

694: The 17th Church Council of Toledo, Spain defined Jews as the serfs of the prince. This was based, in part, on the beliefs by Chrysostom, Origen, Jerome, and other Church Fathers that God punished the Jews with perpetual slavery because of their responsibility for the execution of Jesus.

722: Leo III outlawed Judaism. Jews were baptized against their will.

855: Jews were exiled from Italy

1050: The Synod of Narbonne prohibited Christians from living in the homes of Jews.

1078: “Pope Gregory VII decreed that Jews could not hold office or be superiors to Christians.”

1078: The Synod of Gerona forced Jews to pay church taxes

1096: The First Crusade was launched in this year. Although the prime goal of the crusades was to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims, Jews were a second target. As the soldiers passed through Europe on the way to the Holy Land, large numbers of Jews were challenged: “Christ-killers, embrace the Cross or die!” 12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley alone were killed in the first Crusade. This behavior continued for 8 additional crusades until the 9th in 1272.

1099: The Crusaders forced all of the Jews of Jerusalem into a central synagogue and set it on fire. Those who tried to escape were forced back into the burning building.

1121: Jews were exiled from Flanders (now part of present-day Belgium)

1130: Some Jews in London allegedly killed a sick man. The Jewish people in the city were required to pay 1 million marks as compensation.

1146: The Second Crusade began. A French Monk, Rudolf, called for the destruction of the Jews.

1179: Canon 24 of the Third Lateran Council stated: “Jews should be slaves to Christians and at the same time treated kindly due of humanitarian considerations.” Canon 26 stated that “the testimony of Christians against Jews is to be preferred in all causes where they use their own witnesses against Christians.”

1180: The French King of France, Philip Augustus, arbitrarily seized all Jewish property and expelled the Jews from the country. There was no legal justification for this action. They were allowed to sell all movable possessions, but their land and houses were stolen by the king.

1189: Jews were persecuted in England. The Crown claimed all Jewish possessions. Most of their houses were burned.

Inserted from <Religioustolerance.org>

From there we continue with a brief look at the Inquisition.

The Inquisition was a Roman Catholic tribunal for discovery and punishment of heresy, which was marked by the severity of questioning and punishment and lack of rights afforded to the accused.

While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France. By 1255, the Inquisition was in full gear throughout Central and Western Europe; although it was never instituted in England or Scandinavia.

Initially a tribunal would open at a location and an edict of grace would be published calling upon those who are conscious of heresy to confess; after a period of grace, the tribunal officers could make accusations. Those accused of heresy were sentenced at an auto de fe, Act of Faith. Clergyman would sit at the proceedings and would deliver the punishments. Punishments included confinement to dungeons, physical abuse and torture. Those who reconciled with the church were still punished and many had their property confiscated, as well as were banished from public life. Those who never confessed were burned at the stake without strangulation; those who did confess were strangled first. During the 16th and 17th centuries, attendance at auto de fe reached as high as the attendance at bullfights.

In the beginning, the Inquisition dealt only with Christian heretics and did not interfere with the affairs of Jews. However, disputes about Maimonides’ books (which addressed the synthesis of Judaism and other cultures) provided a pretext for harassing Jews and, in 1242, the Inquisition condemned the Talmud and burned thousands of volumes. In 1288, the first mass burning of Jews on the stake took place in France.

In 1481 the Inquisition started in Spain and ultimately surpassed the medieval Inquisition, in both scope and intensity. Conversos (Secret Jews) and New Christians were targeted because of their close relations to the Jewish community, many of whom were Jews in all but their name. Fear of Jewish influence led Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand to write a petition to the Pope asking permission to start an Inquisition in Spain. In 1483 Tomas de Torquemada became the inquisitor-general for most of Spain, he set tribunals in many cities. Also heading the Inquisition in Spain were two Dominican monks, Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martin.

First, they arrested Conversos and notable figures in Seville; in Seville more than 700 Conversos were burned at the stake and 5,000 repented. Tribunals were also opened in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia. An Inquisition Tribunal was set up in Ciudad Real, where 100 Conversos were condemned, and it was moved to Toledo in 1485. Between 1486-1492, 25 auto de fes were held in Toledo, 467 people were burned at the stake and others were imprisoned. The Inquisition finally made its way to Barcelona, where it was resisted at first because of the important place of Spanish Conversos in the economy and society.

More than 13,000 Conversos were put on trial during the first 12 years of the Spanish Inquisition. Hoping to eliminate ties between the Jewish community and Conversos, the Jews of Spain were expelled in 1492…

Inserted from <Jewish Virtual Library>

Now, lest you consider this a rant against Catholicism, it is not. The brief period of Protestant theocracy in Massachusetts gave us witch burnings. It is the nature of religious hypocrites to seek and abuse authority. The fruit of theocracy is rotten to the core. Now the theocons might argue that it isn’t true anymore, because they like Jews and support Israel, but that claim is also a lie. It still applies, because the theocons have new outcasts. Here’s a theocon from Family Research Council discussing the problem that gay people cannot get permanent visas for partners who were here on temporary work and student visas, because the state does not recognize gay unions:

(To see the video, go to the bottom and see it at my blog.  I could not get it to post here.)

The bigotry is unchanged. It just has new targets.
In addition to intolerance, hate and bigotry, the fruit of theocracy will be rotten any time what’s best for people interferes with their religious agenda. Here’s Tony Perkins of family research council talking about global warming:

(To see the video, go to the bottom and see it at my blog.  I could not get it to post here.)

Can we entrust the care of the earth to those who want it to end in apocalypse?
Tomorrow I shall discuss the error that has led the religious right to attempt to impose their dogma and attempt to discern Jesus’ view.

Cross-posted at Politics Plus

Religion (not faith, not spirituality) has always been an insidious part of the American government. Under President Sociopath, the infusion of religion into policy has gotten even more brazen. As much as the founding fathers tried to keep church and state separate, it has not worked. One of the more effortless channels that has allowed religion to take root in American politics has been something as simple as this passage:

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation, under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Every time I hear those words for some reason I immediately think getting under a desk in an air raid drill – just like we had in the early 1960’s. I have not recited the Pledge since sophomore year of high school, and more than likely I will never recite those words again. Of course the few students (including myself) that chose not to recite the Pledge were subject to [some] pressure. I didn’t succumb. I stood in silence every day for almost 3 years. At least I got a bit of exercise.

Something just doesn’t sit right about pledging allegiance – to a flag, to an object or any symbol. It doesn’t mean I don’t care about my country or my fellow citizens or that I am not patriotic, it just means I don’t think I need to prove it by reciting a “pledge”. There is something very totalitarian and indoctrinating about it to me. It is no better than the bell ringing for one of Pavlov’s dogs.

But forget about what I just wrote about the ‘loyalty oath’ angle — the words “under God” are enough to make my whole autocratic argument moot.

Title 4.4 of the United States Code states that the pledge

should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

The Pledge of Allegiance first appeared in the September 1892 issue Youth’s Companion, a children’s magazine. The author was Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist and Baptist minister. The owners of Youth’s Companion were selling flags to schools, and approached Bellamy to write the Pledge for their advertising campaign. It was marketed as a way to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus arriving in the Americas.

Bellamy’s original Pledge read as follows: “I Pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.” It was seen as a call for national unity and wholeness in country still feeling the leftover scars and divisions 25+ years after the Civil War. The Pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be recited in 15 seconds and not to be a religious calling.

After a proclamation by President Benjamin Harrison, the Pledge was first used in public schools on October 12, 1892 during Columbus Day observances. (not a pleasant looking guy huh?)

In 1923, the National Flag Conference requested the words “my flag” be changed to the “flag of the United States.” One year later, the words “of America” were added. This particular change was enacted as a way to ensure that immigrants knew that were pledging to the flag of their new home, not their native country. In December 1945, soon after the end of World War II, the U.S. Congress officially recognized as the Pledge as the “official national pledge”.

Needless to say the Pledge has had a very controversial history.

In 1940 the Supreme Court ruled that students in public schools could be compelled to recite the Pledge. In 1943, the Supreme Court reversed its decision, in the landmark case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. The court ruled in that “compulsory unification of opinion” violated the First Amendment. Since this ruling, public schools (even in 2008) cannot force student to recite the pledge, nor can they punish them. That would surprise a lot of people, since the way the pledge is positioned and performed in almost all public schools – you would think it is a requirement.

Under God

Feeling a reference to a deity was necessary, The Knights of Columbus began a campaign in 1951 to add the words “under God” to the Pledge. In February 1954, President Eisenhower attended a service in which the speaker – Revered George Docherty, gave a sermon about the flag and patriotism — and adroitly used Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (which contains “under God”) to push Eisenhower to act with respect to adding “under God.” Couple that with the fact 1954 was the beginning of the Cold War with the “godless” Soviet Union, you have a recipe for the perfect Pledge re-write. A bill was quickly introduced and passed in Congress. The phrase “under God” was added after “One Nation” when Eisenhower signed a bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954. You can lay good money on the outcome of that legislation — a lot more controversy. Welcome to one more step in the creeping terror of mixing religion with state.

Since that last wording change, there have been many challenges to both the pledge and especially “under God.” A variety of organizations have attacked it from many different angles. Jehovah’s Witnesses want the words eliminated since their beliefs preclude swearing loyalty. Critics and progressives say that “under God” violates the Establishment Clause of the First amendment with respect to freedom of religion, as it gives the impression of religious endorsement by the government. Atheists say it demonstrates that God is a required part of society. Non-Christian groups say it refers to Christianity, while polytheists say it sanctions monotheism.

Other groups just have a problem with the entire pledge. Libertarians say a loyalty oath is just another form of socialism. People have challenged individual words as a reason to negate the whole Pledge – indivisible doesn’t work since states can secede; liberty and justice for all doesn’t fit since that concept really doesn’t exist. Some even say the Pledge trivializes patriotism. The list goes on — why does it have to be recited every day? Doesn’t this show how arrogant we are? Why are we pledging to a flag instead of ideal? Does it overly-influence children? Do they really know what they are saying? Yadda yadda yadda.

As you can see, the Pledge of Allegiance and the words “under God” make people uncomfortable and ill-at-ease. A lot of people. Including me. I really do not see the need for the words “under God”, and for that matter the Pledge itself. The only fully happy, shiny people with respect to “under God” clause are the wingnuts, the uber-nationalists and, of course the US Congress. The words “under God” truly tip this from “I love my country” to “the higher being loves us.”

In 1992, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the words “under God” did not violate the Establishment clause. Then in 2002, the Ninth Circuit ruled “under God” was unconstitutional.

Enter the fundamentalists, jingoists and other assorted nut cases – who went wild at that ruling. The Senate, House and Idiot President all spoke out in favor of keeping “under God.” (big surprise huh!) The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court in 2oo4 and was overturned on a technicality (the parent of the child in the school did not have custodial standing). SCOTUS dodged the proverbial bullet — the constitutionality of the pledge and “under God” were not addressed. The Republic was saved!

In their great tradition of mixing politics and jingoism, and in the spirit of eliminating any further cases to junk the words “under God,” the Congress introduced – H.R. 2389 in 2005. That bill would strip the Supreme Court and federal courts of any power to consider legal challenges to government requiring or promoting of the Pledge of Allegiance. H.R. 2389 was passed by the Republican led House of Representatives in July 2006, but failed when the Senate did not take it up.

If you can’t stop the court from acting by shaming them, just pass a law. The creeping terror continues.