Strollerderby : first amendment

Separation of Church and State=Same Sex Marriage

Shannon LC Cate — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:00:00 GMT

Finally! Someone from a religious perspective is talking sense about gay marriage. (And it's in the newspaper.) Joseph Conn, spokesperson for Americans United for the Separation on Church and State told the San Jose Mercury news:

"At its heart, the marriage issue is a church-state issue...In effect, you have several of the large faith groups trying to impose their viewpoint on marriage on the whole state. That's really what's going on with this referendum."

Precisely. Civil marriage is a legal status granted by the state. It has nothing to do with religious marriage which is granted or not by religious traditions in a wide variety of ways. Hence many same-sex couples have received blessings on their unions from their religious communities but lack any civil rights based on legal marriage. Hence, same-sex couples in states that marry them have those civil rights and may or may not have received any kind of blessing from a religious entity.

I have long-believed that the confusion people have about the difference between what a religious entity does in marrying and what the state does in marrying is the crux of the disagreement about "gay marriage." Churches will never have to marry same-sex couples if doing so offends their beliefs. Think about it. No church has to marry anybody now if doing so offends their beliefs. Most Roman Catholic churches won't marry non-Catholics unless they convert and/or the non-Catholic member of a couple promises to allow any children to be raised Catholic. Orthodox Jewish rabbis often have similar policies. Various churches I have attended had requirements to marry that included church-based premarital counseling, church membership of a year or longer and even a history of contributing money to the church.

In spite of these rules, the Roman Catholic Church is not lobbying to outlaw marriage for non-Catholics. But that's the level of absurdity to which religious opposition to same-sex marriage falls.

In this country, we have something called freedom of religion. That means we are free to practice or not practice any religion we choose. It also means we are free from the government making laws based on the beliefs of any particular religion and enforcing them upon everyone.

And this married, Christian, lesbian mom says thank God for that.

Bush Wants to Fund Religious Schools with Your Tax Money

Shannon LC Cate — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:30:00 GMT

The White House Domestic Policy Council issued a report last week, called “Preserving a Critical National Asset: America’s Disadvantaged Students and the Crisis in Faith-based Urban Schools” Among other things, the report calls for considerable increases of public funding to private, religiously affiliated schools through vouchers, tax credits and other forms of tax aid at both federal and state levels. it also recommends the establishment of religious charter schools.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State pointed out that such a move would require "rewriting the First Amendment."

I've said here before that I plan to home school my children, at least for a few years. I myself attended a private, religious school for twelve years. But at that time, my parents did not support early attempts at government funding of private education, in the form of tax credits. They knew that not only is such government support unconstitutional, but it would be unethical to pull their own support from universal public education when the vast majority of U.S. children need and use it.

Parents who make private choices to educate their children outside the public system are no less responsible for all children than are child-free people. High quality free education for all is our obligation in a democracy.

Let There Be Science in Science Class

LilySea — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:36:00 GMT

According to the Wilmington Star-News the school board of Brunswick North Carolina is considering putting creationism in the science curriculum. Says board member, Jimmy Hobbs, "It's really a disgrace for the state school board to impose evolution on our students without teaching creationism. The law says we can't have Bibles in schools, but we can have evolution, of the atheists."

Though declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1987, as well as plenty of lesser courts, teaching creationism—especially in its new, not-so-secret identity of “Intelligent Design”—as some kind of gesture towards intellectual “balance” is a horse some folks seem determined to just keep beating.

How I wish I could be sure that horse was dead. But with creationist, Sarah Palin, on the Republican presidential ticket, a parent can never be too sure. As someone who is neither an atheist nor a creationist, the insistance on either-or rhetoric in public discussions of this topic drives me insane. Everybody I know "believes" in evolution. If "belief" is indeed the right word to apply to something as scientifically certain as gravity. Ninety-nine percent of the people I know believe in a higher power. Of those, 75% at least are Christians. The fundamentalist theocrats trying to claim that creationism is the Christian "side" of this debate are falsely representing pretty much every Christian I know. And it's a lie that kids can't have Bibles in schools. That would be as unconstitutional as teaching creationism.

School T-Shirt Controversy: "N the 'N' Word"

Kelly Mills — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:38:00 GMT

Eight-year-old Jaiden Haber was sent to the principal's office for wearing a shirt that said, "N the 'N' Word" and below that, "It's time!" The principal of the Amityville school told Jaden to change the shirt. The executive director of the Nassau chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union says that violated Jaiden's First Amendment rights. The district superintendent says, "To send a little white girl wearing this shirt into a very diverse district that is almost 90 percent nonwhite was not the way to address this word. It's a lightning rod." Jaiden's mom says the school should have used this as a teaching moment, and that Jaiden innocently made history. But you know what really bothers me about this story?

What Jaiden says. "My mom picked it out. She thought it would look nice on me. I don't know why they made me take it off." See, her mom didn't explain the shirt to her, saying she wanted to "keep her innocent." So while I'm with the New York Civil Liberties Union on the fact that she should have the right to wear the shirt, I am really, really bugged by the fact that her mom sent her to school in a controversial shirt without telling her the significance of it. Frankly, I think it's totally unfair to her kid, and her comments make it sound as though she wanted to start something, in shades of lamb to the slaughter. What do you think? And how does this stack up against political onesies and the like?

Government Official Flaunts Offensive Bumper Sticker

Infant Oversharing and a Crappy 'Poo-stache'

Political Nanny: Snippet from Hillary/O'Reilly Interview

Madeline Holler — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:36:00 GMT

He goes there. But then, we all knew he would. Here's Bill O'Reilly baiting Hillary to talk about Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Notice, he asks her "as an American ...," he says "you're an American, I'm an American, he's an American." I guess the appropriate response is: an therefore protected by the 1st Amendment (lucky for you Bill). Alas, that was not her response.

We'll bring other highlights as they come. Or watch tonight yourself (no, don't give FOX the ratings).

For a real Q&A, go here.

[via TPM]

Georgia Schools Must Not Teach the First Amendment

Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah — Thu, 03 May 2007 19:51:00 GMT

I lived in Florida for 21 years and I used to get really sick of people making fun of the south for being backward. I guess there is some truth to every stereotype. Georgia has started offering state funded bible study classes. I wish I was kidding.

Even though I attended a southern college I was a Political Science major and I clearly remember learning about both freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. Look, I understand that they are offering this as an elective, and I get that it could be classified as a general religion course but something just doesn't sit right with me.

Maybe I am nervous about the direction the federal government seems to be heading. Maybe I'm still bitter because you were much more likely to get into my high school's show choir if you went to my director's church. Maybe I'm concerned for my children.

Or maybe it is the sentence: The Georgia law allowing the state-funded Bible classes won overwhelming approval last year from both Democrat and Republican lawmakers.

Either way, I think that the Georgia State legislature might need to brush up on constitutional law or strongly consider funding electives studying other religious texts as soon as possible.