Pushback

This guy seems to be a bit miffed about things.

Christian pastor has had enough of politics being brought into the church
byu/Romano16 inPublicFreakout

Today's Wingnut

No one speaks for a god that doesn't exist, so anyone can speak for that "god".

These jagoffs get wealthy simply by developing a good pitch, and growing their mailing list.

And one of the best gimmicks is to feign outrage when somebody points out their failings, because then the congregation can sit there and think, "Well, he's not talking about me - I'm a good little believer. He's mad at all those others - those heathens ..." blah blah blah.

And BTW, when this guy conflates "stolen 2020 election" with his  little spiel about "faith" and "prophesy", we know a coupla things:

• Religion is politics - it's the original politics (IMO)
• It's not just a matter of using god to back up your political stance, it's using a political structure to enforce a religious doctrine
• Lots of people can be very susceptible to a God-Anointed King set up because they feel the need to be told what to do, which they think absolves them from a certain level of responsibility
• And that's why the founders told us to keep that shit separate

Season's Reasons

Display by The Satanic Temple Iowa at the Iowa Capitol

Gov. Reynolds calls Satanic Temple display at State Capitol ‘absolutely objectionable’

12-12-2023
DES MOINES, Iowa — Gov. Kim Reynolds has weighed in on a controversial display at the Iowa State Capitol.

The Satanic Temple Iowa set up its holiday display back on December 2nd and it has raised a lot of eyebrows. It features a depiction of Baphomet, “a pagan idol associated with the Knights Templar that was conceived in the 11th century and whose depiction has changed dramatically over time.” The display also features the seven core beliefs of the religion.

A spokesperson for the Iowa Department of Administrative Services said the group applied for the spot and met all the requirements.

State Representative Brad Sherman, a Republican from Williamsburg, called on Gov. Kim Reynolds to take down the display. In his newsletter, he claims the preamble to the Iowa constitution refers to a supreme being, which is God. Sherman says with Satan being an enemy of God, the display is unconstitutional.

Gov. Reynolds responded in a news release Tuesday morning.

“Like many Iowans, I find the Satanic Temple’s display in the Capitol absolutely objectionable. In a free society, the best response to objectionable speech is more speech, and I encourage all those of faith to join me today in praying over the Capitol and recognizing the nativity scene that will be on display – the true reason for the season.”

GOV. KIM REYNOLDS

The Satanic Temple of Iowa released a statement Monday about the display.

“The Satanic Temple Iowa is proud to participate in the festivities at our Capitol this holiday season. Our display features the 7 Tenets, a set of seven core beliefs that members see as their guideposts for our deeply held beliefs; advocating for bodily autonomy, a rejection of arbitrary authority, recognizing our own fallibility, and inspiring nobility in thought and action which we hope enlightens the viewer to our beliefs and inspires one to reflect upon their own approach to the world. We thank the staff of the Capitol, the Capitol police & the Department of Administrative Services for holding fast to the principle of religious freedom and ensuring all religions have an equal opportunity to celebrate the holidays together in our beautiful Capitol.”

SATANIC TEMPLE IOWA

The display is scheduled to stay up through Friday, December 15th.

Today's Tortured Logic

This doofus wants me to believe the founders of USAmerica Inc wrote the first amendment intending not to include any religion that doesn't have some kind of theism at its core.

He starts out arguing that any religion that wasn't recognized in 1787 couldn't be protected, but that would kick the Mormons right in the balls - not that I wouldn't wanna see that - and since he's aiming at the People's Satanic Temple, he has to do a half-twist and say "non-theistic" religions.

Convenient, right?

But hold on a sec - what about the Buddhists?

He finally gets to the gist of it, saying that he (and hopefully, like-minded judges) get to decide what is and what is not a "religion".

Fuck that guy.

Seriously - wait'll you get to the part about blasphemy - fuck that guy with a pineapple.

Originalists Against Satanism
The Founders would not have considered Satanism a real religion.

Last month, as tensions between a school district in my area of Pennsylvania and the Satanic Temple were heading toward a lawsuit, I wrote that there was no constitutional right to Satanism. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The argument was simply that, at the time the First Amendment was ratified, the definition of the word “religion” clearly did not include Satanism. Therefore, under basic originalist principles of constitutional interpretation, Satanism should not be protected as a religion under the First Amendment.

It is one thing to write essays about the ideal and proper interpretation of the Constitution. It is quite another to litigate real facts and circumstances before the federal courts. A couple weeks ago, the ACLU, on behalf of the Satanic Temple, filed suit against the Saucon Valley School District for failure to approve an after-school Satan club. The lawsuit alleges First Amendment violations of both the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause, as well as violation of the constitutional right to freedom of speech.

Among conservative religious liberty litigators, the original thesis—that the Satanic Temple should not qualify as a religion under the original meaning of the First Amendment—is generally well-regarded. Even if the courts have been veering off track in their definition of religion in recent decades, originalist attorneys seem to agree that non-theistic groups like the Satanic Temple ought not to be considered religions under the Constitution.

The free speech issue is trickier. Historically, there were several generally accepted exceptions to the right to free speech when the Bill of Rights was passed, such as defamation, fraud, obscenity, and threats. That list properly includes blasphemy. There is a long tradition of blasphemy as an exception to the constitutional right to free speech, as courts from the time of the Founding to as recently as World War II have consistently held anti-blasphemy laws to be consistent with the First Amendment.

The consensus today seems to be that, while this argument is true, it is unlikely to be accepted by today’s courts to permit the exclusion of an after-school Satan club when other “benevolent” organizations are allowed. It seems like, even among conservative attorneys litigating in this field, these fights are too far gone and not worth taking up. It seems there are more promising arguments to take up and win in the name of religious freedom.

Public-interest firms have limited resources and an almost infinite number of potential cases to take on. Therefore, they need to discern how best to spend their time. But it is also important for conservatives to go beyond the low-hanging fruit, beyond the most promising and winnable issues. Sometimes we need to lay the groundwork for an ambitious long game. If this is a minority viewpoint on the right, that is fine. Sometimes, one has to dissent.

While dissenting opinions from courts are not law, they are not simply the whining of the losing side. They serve an important purpose. The many excellent dissenting opinions written in recent decades, particularly by Justices Scalia and Thomas, show that dissents have a crucial role in shaping law. Today’s dissents can become tomorrow’s majority opinions, as seen in the period from Roe v. Wade to Dobbs. Even if there is not enough influence, power, votes, or sufficient public opinion behind a particular good idea today, it is worth articulating that idea today anyway. It can shape the opinions of others today, increase the power and influence of that opinion, and lead more people to hold that opinion tomorrow.

“Living constitutionalism” in any form remains an unacceptable way to view and interpret the Constitution. Despite progressive claims in recent decades, the Constitution is not a living, breathing document that says whatever one thinks it ought to say for the modern day and age. The Constitution is a fixed legal document, which says and means the same thing it said and meant at the time it was enacted. Therefore, one cannot simply take a moral judgment (that Satanism is harmful in all forms) and turn it into a constitutional issue (since Satanism is harmful, it must not be constitutionally protected). The reality is that sometimes the Constitution is silent on or perhaps even in opposition to something morally good and proper. If it is silent, the answer is to pass a law. If it is opposed, the answer is to amend the Constitution.

It is not an acceptable answer for courts to interpret the Constitution to say what it does not say. Judges are bound to uphold and defend the Constitution, which is "the supreme law of the land." The fact that we have a written constitution as the supreme law of our land seems to mean that originalism is the proper way for judges to fulfill their oath. It might seem better to have a system where appeals to court precedent, common law, or general questions of fairness and justice may override inconvenient constitutional text, but that is not the system we have.

That being said, some modern takes on originalist constitutional interpretation err by seemingly prioritizing neutrality as the goal itself. Criticism of originalism from the right, particularly that of “common good constitutionalists” such as Adrian Vermeule, argue that originalism was a useful tool to combat progressivism but not a necessary principle of constitutional interpretation for all times. While it is an intriguing argument for a conservative tired of weak libertarian originalism, there are reasons to be skeptical (reasons beyond the scope of this essay).

But the common good constitutionalist criticism points to something true: in the conservative legal movement’s adoption of originalism, many seem to have adopted value neutrality as the highest good. One can search dictionaries for the original meaning of the words at the time of enactment, but must take care to pass no judgment on the good objectives the legislators were obviously enacting by their words. This can be rejected without throwing out the originalist baby with the bathwater. There are other ways to be an originalist, to strive for the common good while remaining within the original meaning of the text.

Back once more to the Satanism issue. A multitude of religions (even those we think are clearly untrue) have First Amendment rights to free exercise. Viewpoints we find wrong or even dangerous are entitled to free speech protection. But one need not be so captivated by these general concepts of liberty that he fails to apply the proper constraints that existed at the time of the Founding. Yes, there is broad freedom of religion in this country, but not every system of belief fits the definition of religion. Yes, the First Amendment provides robust free speech rights, but there are many exceptions, and blasphemy is one of them.

There is nothing wrong with articulating a constitutional position that has a moral foundation—in this case, that Satanism is not a protected religion and that satanic talk is blasphemy unprotected by freedom of speech. Every legal question is a moral question: both sides of the debates about the constitutionality of everything from abortion to the death penalty are ultimately making moral arguments. It is the job of lawyers and policymakers to advocate for justice under the law. If we find something to be morally just and proper, it is not only acceptable but necessary to make good faith legal arguments in support of those positions.

It seems the state of our courts, and even of the conservative movement, is not in a place where these First Amendment arguments against Satanism are mainstream, popular, or likely to succeed. But today’s dissents can be tomorrow’s majority opinions. So if after-school Satan clubs in middle schools currently have the blessing of federal courts, keep fighting for saner times and homeschool your kids in the meantime. It is worth maintaining that Satanism is not only morally wrong and bad for the common good, but is not a protected religion nor protected speech under an originalist reading of the First Amendment. If that is not the opinion of the majority, then we should respectfully but vehemently dissent. One can hope and pray that today’s dissents may be tomorrow’s majorities.

Can we stop pretending these freaks aren't managing to bringing this fringey theocratic bullshit to the center of the debate?

Benedict Is Dead

I'll say this first: I'm sure someone loved the guy, and I don't want to shit on any of that.

What I will shit on is any attempt to scrub Father Ratzinger's history.

Yes, once he became Pope Benedict XVI, he imposed some changes in the way the church handles priests who sexually molest or abuse children - so good on him for that.

And yes, he made decisions before becoming pope that ensured the church would be shielded from investigation of - and consequences because of - some of the worst of the allegations. Which turns the whole ugly thing into a PR exercise, aimed at preserving the political and commercial viability of the Catholic Church - so fuck that guy.

Benedict Leaves Behind a Conflicted Legacy on Clerical Sexual Abuse

Joseph Ratzinger was accused of mishandling cases when he was bishop of Munich, but as pope he was credited with forcing the Catholic Church to face a scourge long ignored.

Before he led the Roman Catholic Church as Benedict XVI, and before he loomed over the church as a powerhouse cardinal and the Vatican’s chief doctrinal watchdog, Joseph Ratzinger, archbishop of Munich, attended a 1980 meeting about a priest in northwestern Germany accused of abusing children.

What exactly transpired during the meeting is unclear — but afterward, the priest was transferred, and over the next dozen years moved around Bavaria to different parishes before he ended up in the tiny village of Garching an der Alz, where he sexually abused Andreas Perr, then 12.

“It feels so heavy,” Mr. Perr said on Tuesday, puffing cigarettes outside the house where he was molested, just a few steps from the white steeple of the village church. He said his abuse had led him down a road marred by drugs and prison while Archbishop Ratzinger had risen up the ranks of the church. Speaking of the retired Pope Benedict XVI, who died on Saturday, he added, “to think of the power that one person could have over your life.”

A report last year commissioned by the Catholic Church in Munich accused Benedict of mishandling cases of sexual abuse by priests. Benedict apologized for any “grievous faults” but denied any wrongdoing.

The scourge of child sexual abuse in the church haunted Benedict, from the beginning of his rise through the hierarchy to his last year as a frail, retired pope, when the Munich investigators added a final complication to a deeply conflicted legacy.

To supporters, he is the leader who first met with victims and — more than anyone before him — forced the church to finally face its demons, change its laws and get rid of hundreds of abusive priests. He raised the age of consent and included vulnerable adults in laws that protected minors. He allowed the statutes of limitations on sexual abuse to be waived.

To critics, he protected the institution over the victims in its flock, failed to hold even a single bishop accountable for shielding abusers and did not back up his words with action. He preferred to keep discipline in house, never requiring cases to be reported to the civil authorities.

“We can be grateful for what Benedict XVI did in bringing the fight against abuse in the church to a new level by introducing tighter procedures and new laws,” said the Rev. Hans Zollner, one of the Vatican’s top experts in safeguarding minors and in sexual abuse. “He was the first pope to meet with survivors of abuse. At the same time, given the report that during his years as archbishop of Munich he failed to give due attention to victims of abuse and hold perpetrators accountable, we cannot ignore that victims and others are hurting.”

Mr. Perr, now 38, is still trying to rebuild a life after what the church put him through. He is no longer a member of the Catholic Church.

As Archbishop Ratzinger ascended to greater heights, Mr. Perr’s life spiraled into an ever deeper abyss. His mother refused to believe him, and he fled home and got into heavy drugs like heroine, living out on the streets.

“After it happened, I started having nightmares,” he said. “That’s what made me start doing drugs. I wanted to stop dreaming, to stop feeling guilty and disgusting. I just didn’t want to feel anything anymore.”

Over the years, Mr. Perr ended up in prison twice, getting out on parole only last year.

That was when he found the criminal lawyer Andreas Schulz, after learning Mr. Schulz was representing other abuse victims of the same priest. Together, they decided to aim higher: They would file a civil lawsuit, not just against the priest accused of molesting him and several boys in Garching, but also against the Archdiocese of Munich and Joseph Ratzinger, then its archbishop.

Before Benedict died, the pope emeritus hired a large international law firm and said he planned to defend himself in a trial set to start this year. Now, Mr. Schulz and his client plan to pursue the case even in his death, and they still want to hold Benedict XVI, or the heir to his estate, accountable.

Mr. Schulz said it might even be Benedict’s successor, Pope Francis, who inherits case, should he become Benedict’s heir. The lawyer argued that the church should accept the trial as an opportunity to finally clear up the complicated history Benedict XVI left behind.

“His theological achievements are one side of his legacy,” Mr. Schulz said. “But there are shadows that hang over him, and those shadows can only be removed now if the right thing is done and accountability is accepted. That is something only Pope Francis can do now, and that is what our trial is trying to push toward: People want transparency, they want acceptance of accountability, they want compensation.”

Accounts such as Mr. Perr’s have become painfully familiar in the church over recent decades. The revelation of systemic abuse gutted dioceses and chased away the faithful in countries all around the world.

In the United States, a scandal that erupted in Boston has shaken nearly every part of the country. The church in Ireland, once a fortress for Catholicism, was so decimated by abuse scandals that Benedict in 2010 wrote the first pastoral letter from a pope on the issue of abuse. “You have suffered grievously, and I am truly sorry,” he wrote. A 2021 report in France alleged that hundreds of thousands of children had been abused by the church there.

Church leaders, who once considered the crisis an invention of liberals and lawyers, or a problem of Anglophone countries drummed up by an anti-Catholic news media, now acknowledge that it is everywhere, and Francis, after his own missteps, introduced rules to hold the hierarchy more accountable.

But supporters of Benedict, and even his critics, acknowledge that Francis built on Benedict’s reforms. Before the deluge that overwhelmed the church, the cases dripped in during the 1980s — often from English-speaking countries — and fell on his desk at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

In 1988, he pressed the Vatican’s canon law department — which required long church trials to address accusations — to give him a freer hand to more quickly remove abusive priests. It refused, arguing that such a move would deprive priests of due process, and as a result, bishops sought to cure them with prayer and therapy or simply relocated abusers to other parishes, where they preyed on more children.

But Cardinal Ratzinger’s office also failed to act in egregious cases. In the 1990s, it halted a secret trial of an American priest who had molested as many as 200 deaf boys and wrote to the cardinal insisting the priest had already repented. He was never defrocked.

In 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger persuaded Pope John Paul II to let him try to get the problem under control. He drafted a church law that required bishops to forward all credible allegations of abuse to the Vatican, where his office was made responsible for the cases.

He backed up American bishops who sought to adopt a “zero tolerance” policy that expelled priests who engaged in a single episode of sexual abuse. . As John Paul reached the end of his pontificate in 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger ordered a review of the pending cases in his department.

In 2005 for the Good Friday Via Crucis procession at Rome’s Colosseum, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, “How much filth there is in the church, especially among those who, in the priesthood, are supposed to belong totally” to Christ.

When he became pope, he disciplined — and ultimately defrocked — the Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, a serial abuser and the Mexican founder of the religious order the Legionaries of Christ. A prodigious fund-raiser, Father Maciel had won the loyalty of Pope John Paul II and his inner circle, which had for years blocked Benedict’s efforts to investigate him.

“The issue is very mixed and complex,” said Marie Collins, an Irish survivor of abuse who resigned in frustration in 2017 from a Vatican commission on protecting minors created by Francis. She said that Benedict’s reading of so many cases as head of the doctrinal congregation made him “grasp the enormity of the problem when he became pope,” and that he brought in new procedures against sexual abuse.

Ms. Collins said that it was “unfair to make too much” of the mistakes he made in handling cases during his own personal ministry, when he was a bishop in Germany, but that Benedict, as pope, “didn’t do enough in-depth work on the issue or pursue it to the fullest.”

For many, he did not go nearly far enough.

Anne Barrett Doyle, a co-director of BishopAccountability.org, a victims advocacy and research group, said in a statement the day of Benedict’s death that he “left hundreds of culpable bishops in power and a culture of secrecy intact.”

On Tuesday evening in the Munich cathedral that Benedict led as bishop 40 years ago, the current archbishop, Reinhard Marx, began a Mass in honor of Benedict by inviting everyone to pray, including “those who have experienced abuse and suffering in the space of the church. All those who have received good gifts from Joseph Ratzinger. And all those who now, in this hour, trust that God’s goodness and mercy will heal everything.”

Today's Wingnut

These ChristoPunks have spent 50 years - and hundreds of millions of dollars - marching in lockstep with the politicians who've been angling and pimping and militating to get Roe overturned, and "suddenly" they have no plan to handle the consequences of their fuckery?

It was never about the babies. Never.

Right Wing Watch Blog

Appearing on "Wallbuilders Live," Texas state Rep Phil King admitted the state's adoption system is completely unprepared to deal with the fallout of Roe v Wade being overturned:

"We feel like the dog that caught the car ... I do not think we are prepared for this."

Overheard

My favorite part of the Bible is

where Jesus denies someone communion

for disagreeing with him

on an issue he never mentioned

Church - n - State

There' a right good bit of this thing that don't go down so well. Worth considering though.

About That EO

First - whenever I get all huffy and preachy about Press Poodles, I'll try harder to remind myself that Brianna Kielar is among the few exceptions.

Second - here she basically stomps the sawdust outa that schmuck, and points to a few things that I was totally unaware of.

Third - these things never state in clear language just how shitty the intent really is.  And the intent is always clearly shitty.

Anyway, I hadn't realized how insidious this is.  Kielar points out the veil - they needed to hide their shitty Muslim ban behind the upside-down bullshit that they're all about religious freedom, and we don't want good Christians to get fucked over as we go about fucking over the evil Muslims - just trying to make it OK for persecuted religious minorities to escape and blah blah blah.

"We'll need to engage in religious bigotry in order to combat all this religious bigotry."

The reason I call these assholes assholes is because they're assholes and they should be called assholes.

Your God Can Blow Me

Radical Christian shit is no better than radical Islamic shit, which is no better than radical Judaic shit or radical Hindi shit or or or.

Right-wing pastor advocating for the killing of homosexuals. Jesus and his message of love. pic.twitter.com/LDzXRziKQi

— Right Wing Talk (@RWTQuotes) September 22, 2016

Take away our belief in Imaginary Friends, and we take away that guy's power to get us to do stoopid things that he thinks our imaginary friend is commanding us to do.

 

Push for reasoning and logic and evidence, and bit by bit, we start to dismantle one of the main structural rationalizations for making people suffer.

Today's Tweet

pic.twitter.com/mqT87tYDqk

— Atheistpunkisreal (@atheist_punk1) April 25, 2016

Today's Coming Out

I got out from under the god thing a long time ago - or more accurately, I started pushing back against it as a teenager in the late 60s. It still took me a very long time to come to the realization that I am actually atheistic - I guess I just got an earlier start than most.  

Anyway, it's always seemed to me that it should be relatively simple for anybody else to break away as well, but when I put aside my own ego and I stop and listen to the stories people tell of what it's taken for them to get free, I have to count myself lucky to have been afforded the space to make my own decisions.

From John Pavlovitz, here's the story of a guy who's starting to get it.  At the very least, he understands that way too often, religion is just another political straightjacket. 

I’ve outgrown the furrowed-browed warnings of a sky that is perpetually falling.

I’ve outgrown the snarling brimstone preaching that brokers in damnation.

I’ve outgrown the vile war rhetoric that continually demands an encroaching enemy.

I’ve outgrown the expectation that my faith is the sole property of a political party.

I’ve outgrown violent bigotry and xenophobia disguised as Biblical obedience.

I’ve outgrown God wrapped in a flag and soaked in rabid nationalism.

I’ve outgrown the incessant attacks on the Gay, Muslim, and Atheist communities.

I’ve outgrown theology as a hammer always looking for a nail.

I’ve outgrown the cramped, creaky, rusting box that God never belonged in anyway.

Most of all though, I’ve outgrown something that simply no longer feels like love, something I no longer see much of Jesus in.

If religion it is to be worth holding on to, it should be the place were the marginalized feel the most visible, where the hurting receive the most tender care, where the outsiders find the safest refuge.

It should be the place where diversity is fiercely pursued and equality loudly championed; where all of humanity finds a permanent home and where justice runs the show.

That is not what this thing is. This is FoxNews and red cup protests and persecution complexes. It’s opulent, big box megachurches and coddled, untouchable celebrity pastors. It’s pop culture boycotts and manufactured outrage. It’s just wars and justified shootings. It’s all manner of bullying and intolerance in the name of Jesus.

Feeling estrangement from these things is a good thing.

And Yer Flying Monkeys Too

Where's Dorothy with that water bucket when ya really need her?

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis is, of course, the perfect choice if we're looking for a staunch defender of "traditional marriage" because she's been spreading that One-Man-One-Woman thing all over da joint - divorced 3 times and currently seeing if she can make a go of it with hubby #4. (sometimes this shit is just too easy).

(hat tip = FB buddy VWE)

From Talking Points Memo:

MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) — A Kentucky clerk's office on Thursday again refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, in defiance of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage across the country two months ago.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has refused to issue any marriage licenses, citing her Christian faith and constitutional right to religious freedom, since the landmark decision in June.

On Thursday morning, a deputy clerk in her office refused to issue a marriage license to William Smith Jr. and James Yates. It was their third attempt to get a license.

--and--

Mat Staver, an attorney for Davis, said he was disappointed with the ruling. He said he plans to discuss options with Davis, including an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The court of appeals did not provide any religious accommodation rights to individuals, which makes little sense because at the end of the day it's individuals that are carrying out the acts of the office," Staver said. "They don't lose their individual constitutional rights just because they are employed in a public office."

What she really needs to be worrying about is that there might actually be such a thing as God's Perfect Justice, cuz that would mean her chances of getting anywhere near the pearly gates to plead her case are almost as good as my being able to travel back in time and having Geraldo Rivera discover unicorns and pixies playing strip foosball in Al Capone's secret vault.

No soul and no honor.

Today In GlennBeck-istan

Christian holocaust.  The delusions of persecution just get deeper and deeper, right along with the phat stacks of spending green in Glenn Beck's bank accounts.

hat tip = Little Green Footballs