According to father Tim Jones, a 41-year-old clergyman at St. Lawrence Church in York, England, “Thou Shalt Not Steal” is to be absolutely obeyed without exception. Unless of course you’re poor and can’t afford it. Then by all means…

To be fair he does add “I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither.” But apparently it’s okay to steal from the large corporations because “the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices.” In other words it’s not really stealing. It’s just making other people pay for it so you don’t have to. God never said anything about forcing other people to give charitably against their will, I guess.

A while back I told you about the Arkansas Winter Solstice Display. I didn’t really follow it like I should have (it got lost in the shuffle), but apparently quite a bit has happened since I first posted that story. The ACLU eventually did file a lawsuit about it (which they won, of course), and at least one interesting fact came up that I didn’t know about. Quoting now from the latest story in the Arkansas News:

During Monday’s hearing, it was revealed that the secretary of state’s office has a written policy that allows anyone to apply to put up a display at the Capitol. The policy was established by Daniels’ predecessor, Sharon Priest. The nativity scene was exempt from the application process because it has been a temporary holiday display on the Capitol grounds since the 1940s.

In other words every display except the nativity scene had to get permission. Way to be neutral, eh? Anyway, I just learned about this and haven’t really looked much deeper into it. I’ll dig a bit and let you know any other details that I find.

I don’t know that there is an introduction that can do this video justice. My brain hurts.

Update: I’ve never really listened to or watched Ann Coulter myself, though I’d heard about her from many. I guess I thought this was an outrageous video of her being especially stupid, but after looking through a bunch of old YouTube videos, I’m finding that it was actually pretty representative. If you still want to see the video you can see it here, otherwise I think I’ll just avoid Ann Coulter videos in the future.

It’s really quite simple to prove this. Millions of Catholics have already figured it out. If they couldn’t on their own, then certainly their local Catholic Priest helped them, and of course they can be trusted completely as we prove below.

1. Only a Christian can become a Catholic priest
2. Any Christian, being morally superior, would not and could not molest a child
3. Anybody that molests a child obviously is not a Christian
4. Since
   1. A child molester is not a Christian and…
   2. Only a Christian can become a Catholic priest
   3. Any person that molests a child cannot possibly be a Catholic Priest
5. Therefore all Catholic priests can be absolutely trusted with children

I think that this pretty much sums up many people’s view of Christianity, let alone Christmas itself.

Click on the panel to see the whole comic.

Demonstrating that they have no clue what the real “War” is about, FoxNews once again frames it as an atheist attack on Christianity.

The reality is that it’s about preventing the government from saying that ONLY Christian symbolism is allowed on public property. It’s not an atheist issue, but a 1st Amendment issue. Atheists “won” last year by being allowed to put up a display of their own. This year is a “victory” only in the sense that all religions are being treated equally for once. That is to say that Christian symbolism is not allowed, just as Buddhist, Islamic Jewish, etc… symbolism is not allowed.

EDIT: Forgot to thank the Atheist Media Blog for the heads up.

It appears that one of the first shots in the so-called “War On Christmas” has been fired. Last year the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers tried to get a Winter Solstice display put up at the State Capitol. After they submitted the request, and after many follow-up calls they were finally denied with the following response:

[The] Arkansas Secretary of State is charged with the responsibility of preserving and maintaining proper order and decorum on the State Capitol Grounds. At this time, we are unable to fully determine the appearance or qualities of your proposed display. You may submit additional photographs or drawings of your proposed display if you would like us to reconsider your request.

The ASF tried for awhile after that to get (and give) more info, but eventually decided to just try again in a year.

So here it is 2009 and they’re a bit more prepared this time. They submitted another application for a Winter Solstice Display, and since they were denied for being too vague last year, this year they’ve got detailed descriptions and images of exactly what they expect the display to look like. Of course, you’ve probably already guessed that they were once again denied. What reason was given this time? No reason except for the same vague statement about maintaining proper order and decorum:

As we stated last year, the Arkansas Secretary of State as the custodian of the Capitol Grounds is charged with the responsibility of preserving and maintaining proper order and decorum on the State Capitol Grounds…

Obviously part of the reason that the reply was so vague was to avoid any language that could be construed as pro-christmas and therefore pro-religion (i.e. pro-christian). Not being a lawyer myself, I’m not sure exactly what the legal situation actually is. The ACLU says they are looking into it (“the situation is under review”), which I can only assume means they’re trying to determine what, if any, legal recourse the ASF has. I’m guessing that the next step is getting some definitive reason about why the application was denied instead of some vague notion of proper decorum.

In any event, the path is pretty clear. The state is apparently going to put up as many roadblocks as possible, and the ASF is going to steadily work their way around them. If they don’t succeed this year, then they’ll use what they learned to try again next year. In the end one of two things are likely to happen: 1. The state finally relents and allows the Winter Solstice Display to be erected (not likely), or 2. the state finally somehow lets slip that they’re denying the application simply because it’s not a christmas display, and then the legal battle is on.

So why is this even an issue? The religous folks would like you to believe that it’s a direct attack on Christianity by evil atheists for no better reason than because they’re atheists and that’s what they do. The reality is that it’s a very clear First Amendment issue. The relevent wording is here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

In this case they are doing both by granting rights to Christians which they are denying to everyone else. In other words, by saying “Christmas decorations are allowed, but Solstice decorations are not” the state is saying “Only christian’s may be represented on state owned land.”

It’s late now, and I’m getting tired. To see what my views are on this type of case, see my post on the Mojave Desert Cross (Deep In The Mojave Desert) and it’s followup (Deeper In The Mojave Desert). The situations are very similar, and have the same underlying constitutional problems.

Roughly translated, agnosiophobia means “fear of not knowing” or “fear of a lack of knowledge”. Specifically this means the irrational fear of something not being known, not only personally but in general. This often results in an irrational assertion that in fact the thing being considered is actually known. When pressed the sufferer of this phobia will claim that they don’t have the knowledge themselves, but that they know where to get such knowledge. Most commonly this assertion refers to a deity of some sort, though in some cases the assertion that it is known is enough without also having to assert where and with whom such knowledge exists. In all cases contemplating the idea that the answer is not known by anyone is cause for great anxiety and is to be avoided at all cost.

_{*I “invented” this word, though I’m guessing it’s already been made up many times in the past already, so I make no actual claim of originality. A quick Google revealed the existence of the word (namely as a blog), but no concrete definition.}

As Mein Zy so kindly pointed out, the actual case before the SCOTUS is whether the end run around the Constitution attempted by Congress is valid or not. I knew that as a basic idea, but I hadn’t really explored it in depth. Allow me to do so here. Just so we can be a little bit more clear about what we’re talking about here is a basic time-line of events (shamelessly stolen from Stanislaus Skeptics…blame them if it’s wrong*):

• 1934: A cross was erected as a WWI memorial by the Barstow VFW Post 385 with a sign that reportedly said, “The Cross. Erected in memory of the dead of all wars”. At the time the land was managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
• 1934-1984: The memorial (probably several different crosses during this time) was cared for by John Bembry (a veteran) until his death. The original cross and sign were eventually torn down. The cross was occasionally replaced and repaired. The cross has been the site of Easter sunrise services nearly every year since it was erected and is the site of the Mojave Cross Christian Church.
• 1984-1994: At the request of Mr. Bembry, Henry Sandoz (who is not a veteran) agreed to take over care of the memorial; it is not clear if the memorial was in continuous existence during this time.
• 1994: The site of the cross became part of the 1.6 million acre Mojave National Preserve administered by the National Park Service (NPS); maintenance of the site became the task of the NPS.
• 1998: The current cross was built by Mr. Sandoz and bolted and cemented to the rock; there was no communication with, or permission from, the NPS to erect the cross.
• 1999: The NPS denied a request to erect a Buddhist stupa (a hemispherical shrine or monument) near the site. Frank Buono (former deputy superintendent of the Mojave National Preserve and self-professed Catholic) brought the cross and the denial of the Buddhist shrine to the attention of the ACLU. The ACLU contacted the NPS and asked them to remove the cross since it violated the establishment clause of the constitution. The NPS asked Mr. Sandoz to remove the cross; he refused and threatened to put it back if NPS removed it.
• Oct 2000: The NPS sent a letter to the ACLU announcing that it would remove the cross within the next few months.
• Dec 2000: Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands, CA) added a rider to a House appropriations bill specifying that Federal funds could not be used to move (or remove) the cross.
• March 2001: The ACLU filed a lawsuit (Buono v. Norton) on behalf of Frank Buono seeking removal of the cross.
• July 2002: US District Court (Central District of California) found that the presence of the cross on federal land was in violation of the First Amendment since the “presence of the cross on federal land conveys a message of endorsement of religion” and ordered the cross removed. For the District and Circuit Courts, there was no question of unconstitutional conduct, in part, because the NPS restricted the site to religious symbols of only one religion
• 2003: Rep. Jerry Lewis inserted an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act to designate the “five-foot tall white cross first erected by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States in 1934 as well as a limited amount of adjoining Preserve property” as a “national memorial commemorating United States participation in World War I and honoring the American veterans of that war”, allocate $10,000 for a plaque, and to exchange 1-acre of the Mojave National Preserve around the cross with a 5-acre private parcel located elsewhere in the preserve. The land exchange would effectively remove the cross from federal land. [Note that the "five-foot tall white cross" that was erected in 1934 no longer existed]
• June 2004: The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2002 District court decision and declared the cross was in violation of the establishment clause and that “…carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve-like a donut hole with the cross atop of it-will do nothing to minimize the impermissible government endorsement [of a particular religion].”
• April 2005: US District Court (Central District of California) found that the land exchange was a “scam” and “an attempt by the government to evade the permanent injunction enjoining the display of the Latin cross” on federal land.
• February 2009: The US Supreme Court said it would decide on the case (Salazar v. Buono) and will begin hearing arguments in October. Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar will defend the Interior Department’s right to maintain the cross. The ACLU will represent Buono (as they have done previously). Currently the cross is covered by a plywood box.

Of course, we are now waiting on the Supreme Court decision about the land exchange. What a lot of people don’t understand is that it’s not been about the cross being on federal lands for a long time now. That case was won by Buono 8 years ago, and it was a pretty clear win. If the land transfer is found to be constitutional, the property will be considered private and thus will not be on federal lands. In that case the cross can stay because it’s on private property. If on the other hand the land transfer is found to be un-constitutional, then the property will still be considered federally owned, and the cross will have to be torn down since it sits on public property. In either case, the original question of whether a cross can be placed on public property has been decided, and the answer is a clear “NO!”

So why does the land transfer matter? After all the cross is no longer on government lands so it shouldn’t be an issue anymore, right? The problem is that the government is still showing preference for one religion over all others. The government is clearly acting to allow a christian display while rejecting any similar deal for any other religion. The actions necessary to make the display constitutional are unconstitutional for exactly the same reason that the display itself was unconstitutional. In the end the choices are exactly the same: either the government must allow a similar deal for every religion, or it must reject all such deals.

I had kind of hoped to have a more in depth analysis, but I honestly think that it really is just that simple. I can’t think of any additional information that’s really needed.

* Of course I’m kidding. If it’s wrong and I posted it, it’s still my fault for not checking on it’s accuracy myself. Be warned that I did not in fact check it for accuracy. Feel free to insult me mercilessly for that.

Deep in the Mojave Desert is a war memorial, erected 75 years ago. Above it stands a large homemade cross placed there and cared for by the locals. For 62 of those years there was nary a problem with it. Then in 1996, two years after the land become government owned, a group of Buddhists asked for permission to put a shrine next to the cross to represent the fallen Buddhists in the military. They were turned down. And thus began a decade long legal battle which is now being decided by the Supreme Court.

The reason this became an issue at all is because of the wish to erect a shrine to Buddha near the Christian cross. The exact wording of the constitution as it pertains to this case is as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. By disallowing the shrine, the government was prohibiting the free exercise of one religion (Buddhism) in a place where such free exercise is obviously allowed (Christianity).

Another way to look at it: “The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion.” (from Wikipedia) By allowing the Christian cross to be displayed while preventing a Buddhist shrine from being displayed, the government was demonstrating a clear preference for Christianity over Buddhism.

There are two alternatives given this situation. One: allow the Buddhist symbol, as well as a symbol for any other religious group that wishes to be represented. Two: don’t allow any religious symbols to be placed at all. There is a third option, but as I demonstrated above it is explicitly prohibited by the constitution. That is to allow the Christian cross to remain but not allow any other religious symbols to be added.

Option one (allowing all religious symbols) is perfectly valid as far as I’m concerned, but I suspect that things would get crowded (and expensive) once we’ve added a Jewish Star of David, a Buddhist shrine, an Islamic Crescent and Star, a Taoist Yin Yang, a Wiccan Pentagram, a Bahá’í Ringstone, an Pastafarian fish, an Ásatrú Horn of Odin, etc… to the monument. In reality if even the tiniest fraction of the non-christian population wanted representation it would cause serious logistical problems that the government would be REQUIRED to resolve if it was to remain true to the constitution.

Option two on the other hand requires only the removal of a single symbol and the difficulties are over. This is why this is the option being pursued. It’s not an attack on Christianity. It is not an attempt to rid the U.S. of religion. It’s not an atheist plot to take over the world. It’s only the simplest solution to a problem created by an obvious constitutional violation.

For you christians out there, perhaps this is a better way to think about it. What if it were a Buddhist shrine up there instead of a cross? Of course there’s nothing wrong with that. You’re not offended just because there’s a buddhist shrine up there. You’re not a Buddhist, but you realize others are, so it’s no big deal. However, you would like to get a cross put up there because you’re a veteran too and that would more closely represent your own religion. But when you ask to do so, the government says “Nope, only Buddhist shrines are allowed on government property.” Would you fight for the right to put up a cross, even if you knew in the end it would only result in the shrine being taken down instead?