About Those Commandments

I think everybody should stop for a bit, think it through, and come up with their own version of the 10 commandments.

Here's mine:

1. Think and speak of your beliefs in your own way, and let others do the same
2. Be true to the ideal, not just the symbol
3. Never ask a favor of anyone who will hold you indebted to him for it
4. Spend part of your day thinking about nothing in particular
5. Honor those who love you unconditionally, and try to make yourself worthy of it
6. Never kill indiscriminately, and always with respect
7. Breaking your promise hurts you more than it does the one you made the promise to
8. Know the difference between want and need - and always try to earn what you get
9. Lying creates a false reality that can't be sustained
10. Your right to decide who you are and how you live must not interfere with someone else's right to make those decisions for themselves

Slouching Towards Nuremberg

There's always a double-digit percentage of true believers open to being further radicalized.

IOW: There's a sucker born every minute, and two sharpers to take him.

BTW:

What does the Bible say about Christian Nationalism?

Scripture does not support the idea of Christian nationalism. Any people or group that claims their nationality places them under Jesus Christ's favor and blessing deny the Gospel's truth. Any citizen who places their devotion to Christ on the same level as their allegiance to their country is guilty of idolatry.

Today's Religion Stuff

• Hindus have been waiting for Kalki for 3,700 years
• Buddhists have been waiting for Maitreya for 2,600 years
• The Jews have been waiting for the Messiah for 2,500 years
• Christians have been waiting for Jesus for 2,000 years
• Sunnah waits for Prophet Issa for 1,400 years
• Muslims have been waiting for a messiah from the line of Muhammad for 1,300 years
• Shiites have been waiting for Imam Mahdi for 1,080 years
• Druze have been waiting for Hamza ibn Ali for 1,000 years

Most religions adopt the idea of a “savior” and state that the world will remain filled with evil until this savior comes and fills it with goodness and righteousness.

Maybe our problem on this planet is that people expect someone else to come solve their problems instead of doing it themselves.

The first thing you do is get up off your fuckin' knees. And then, if you're paying attention, The Evil will show you what's next.

“Speak up, speak out,

get in the way.

Get in good trouble,

necessary trouble,

and help redeem the soul of America.”

--John Lewis

Aged Like Fine Milk

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

--Epicurus, Greek Philosopher

Jim Bakker from early 2023.

Today's Attempted Gotcha

From Quora:

Christian: You're skydiving with a child. You've jumped from the airplane, and the kid says he won't pull his rip cord until you renounce your atheism and declare Jesus to be your lord and savior. What would you do?

 Atheist: I'd do what Christians do - I'd lie my ass off to get what I want.

Because Of Course

I'm pretty sure that some religious folk and their leaders are at least well-intentioned, but I find it nigh-on to impossible to believe there's anything but cynical manipulation going on at any "mega-church". There's always something sketchy about these people.

Head of megachurch, in prison for sex abuse, is charged with producing child pornography

Naasón Joaquín García leads the Mexico-based megachurch La Luz del Mundo, which has congregations in the U.S. and other countries and claims to have millions of followers.

LOS ANGELES — The imprisoned head of a Mexico-based megachurch who is serving more than 16 years in a California prison for sexually abusing young followers was charged with two federal crimes Wednesday for allegedly producing child pornography.

A federal grand jury in Los Angeles on Wednesday indicted Naasón Joaquín García, 54, on two felony counts of producing and possessing child pornography, which involved a 16-year-old follower of his church, according to a statement from the U.S. attorney’s office.

When García was arrested in 2019, prosecutors said he had an iPad that contained five videos depicting the then-teenage girl engaging in sexual activity.

“We did not indict until after the state case was finished,” the U.S. attorney’s office stated in an email to the Associated Press.

García heads the megachurch La Luz del Mundo (The Light of the World), which claims to have 5 million followers worldwide, including in the U.S. Believers consider him to be the “apostle” of Jesus Christ. Founded by García's grandfather in the 1920s, it is the largest evangelical church in Mexico.

But prosecutors in California say García used his spiritual sway to have sex with girls and young women who were told it would lead to their salvation — or damnation if they refused.

An email from the Associated Press seeking comment from the church on the new federal charges wasn’t immediately returned Wednesday.

The church has publicly stood by García and in June 2022 issued a statement on Twitter, saying that “our confidence in him remains intact with full knowledge of his integrity, his conduct and his work.”

García is currently serving a prison sentence at the California Institution for Men in Chino. Last year, he pleaded guilty to two state counts of forcible oral copulation involving minors and one count of a lewd act upon a child who was 15 at the time. García was registered as a sex offender for life.

In exchange for García’s plea deal, California prosecutors dropped 16 counts that included allegations of raping children and women, as well as human trafficking to produce child pornography.

The church said at the time that García pleaded guilty because he did not think he could get a fair trial, claiming that prosecutors withheld or doctored evidence and the agreement would allow him to be freed sooner.

Several of García’s accusers, each identified in court only as Jane Doe and who are now young adults, spoke at his trial and decried the plea agreement as too lenient. They had added that they were not consulted on the deal that García reached with the California Attorney General’s Office.

In June, former parishioners and those with relatives in the church protested outside the La Luz del Mundo church in East Los Angeles, alleging that there is abuse still taking place in the church. Some protesters also claimed they or their family members were sexually abused.

But García has followers that defend his leadership, with one of them telling Noticias Telemundo last year that “his honor is not in doubt.”

For more from NBC Latino, sign up for our weekly newsletter.

The abuse in the La Luz del Mundo church was the subject of a 2022 HBO documentary called “Unveiled: Surviving La Luz del Mundo,” as well as a 2023 Netflix documentary called “The Darkness Within La Luz del Mundo.”

If convicted of the federal charges, García could face 15 to 30 years in federal prison for producing child pornography and up to 10 years in prison for possessing it. A judge would decide whether he serves the time concurrently or in addition to his state sentence, according to the U.S. attorney’s office.

In an interview with Noticias Telemundo after García's conviction in 2022, attorney Jonati Yedidsion said the accusers were planning to file civil lawsuits against other church officials, claiming they were complicit in the abuse.

It's A Contagion

James Madison

The purpose of separation

of church and state

is to keep forever from these shores

the ceaseless strife

that has soaked the soil of Europe

in blood for centuries.

Theocratic shit keeps breaking out all over the damned place, but this too shall pass. Not before we see more damage done - but it'll start to fade as more people wake up and realize maybe politics is something they can't afford to ignore.

We should be able to expect better from people, but "better" is a very subjective term. So if we want good government - and no, that's not an oxymoron - we'd best be paying attention to the shit some of these good Christian folk are trying to pull.

You have the right to worship your god - or some oil spot on the garage floor that you think looks just like the Virgin Mary's tits - or anything else - or nothing.

But you don't have the right to impose any of your weird beliefs on me - because I have the right to expect you to keep your imaginary friends to yourself, and out of my fucking government.

One Family Has Spearheaded Montana’s Unflinching Conservatism

Three members of the Regier family now hold leadership positions in the Montana Legislature as the state’s conservative shift has left even some Republicans wary.

During a legislative hearing in 2011 that was a prelude to Montana’s debates on abortion, State Representative Keith Regier displayed an image of a cow and made the argument that cattle were more valuable when pregnant.

The comparison drew a prompt rebuke from some women in the room, but Mr. Regier, a Republican, declined to apologize. Over the years, the former schoolteacher and sod farmer has seldom demurred from his growing brand of combative Christian-oriented politics, in which the Ten Commandments are the foundation of good law and some of the biggest battles have been with moderates in his own party.

Mr. Regier has now emerged as the patriarch of a new family political dynasty that has injected fresh conservative intensity into debates over abortion, diversity training and, this spring, transgender rights. Mr. Regier chairs the Senate’s powerful judiciary committee, while his daughter, Amy, leads its counterpart in the House. Mr. Regier’s son, Matt, has risen to speaker of the House. The trio of legislators, each wielding a similar brand of unflinching conservatism, were among the most powerful proponents of a set of bills that took particular aim at the rights of transgender people.

It was Matt Regier who led the move to bar one of the legislature’s only transgender representatives, Zooey Zephyr, who had spoken out vociferously on the House floor last month against a measure banning hormone treatments and surgical care for transgender minors. The proposal was one of several new laws that passed recently, including one prohibiting adult-oriented drag shows on public property and another creating a strict definition of a person’s sex.

At the close of the legislative session on Tuesday night, fellow lawmakers gave Mr. Regier a standing ovation. “There were many times of sunlight, and there were also times of shade, but overall it’s been an incredible ride,” the speaker said.

The Regier family hails from the Flathead Valley of northwest Montana, a majestic region of glaciers and fir forests around Kalispell that has become a destination for conservatives looking to flee urban life and liberal politics in other states. Militia groups and far-right religious leaders have also found a home in the valley, some of them drawn to the notion of establishing what is often called a “redoubt” in the American Northwest.

Keith Regier and his wife settled there in 1975 after he obtained a degree in physical education from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. At the time, Democrats dominated much of state politics, in part because of strong labor organizing in the state’s expansive mining and timber industries.

Keith Regier taught sixth grade in Kalispell for nearly three decades. Matt was a quarterback for the high school football team, taking it into the state playoffs. Amy earned a degree in nursing and began working at the hospital.

Keith Regier said he had not seriously considered running for office until he retired from teaching, telling The Daily Inter Lake news outlet in 2005 that he planned to focus on sod farming with his son and perhaps do some writing. But by 2008 he had won a seat in the State House, promising to lower taxes, protect the death penalty and undermine labor unions by converting Montana into a “right to work” state.

“This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values,” he said. “Just read the Declaration of Independence. It’s very obvious.”

His unyielding approach gained traction in the state capital of Helena — including his beliefs on abortion — and he rose up to become majority leader in 2015.

That was a surprise to Bob Brown, a longtime former Republican lawmaker from the Flathead area who once ran for governor. At his home where he displays artwork featuring former Republican presidents and a plaque thanking him for contributions to the party, Mr. Brown said he had noticed a shift since his days at the State Capitol: Republican lawmakers no longer wanted leaders who were looking for compromise, he said.

“They just want to implement their own concept of what is right,” he said. “I think Keith Regier is a pretty good example of that.”

The Regiers’ views appealed to the growing movement of extreme conservatives who were gaining traction in the region, said Frank Garner, a former police chief in Kalispell who later represented the area as a moderate Republican in the Legislature. That included not only militia groups but also people like Chuck Baldwin, a pastor with apocalyptic views and a Constitution Party candidate in the 2008 presidential election who had moved his family to the state seeking refuge from what he predicted would be escalating conflict elsewhere in the country. Mr. Baldwin used his pulpit to celebrate the Regiers’ brand of conservatism in Helena.

“They were philosophically the right people in the right place at the right time,” Mr. Garner said.

In 2016, Matt Regier joined his father in running for office, saying he was motivated to do so after the local school board added gender identity to its anti-discrimination policy. He said he feared that the rise of transgender advocacy was threatening traditional values.

Amy Regier ran in 2020, sharing her perspective as a nurse about the societal dangers of coronavirus pandemic restrictions and vowing to cut taxes. In the primary, she defeated a veteran Republican lawmaker, Bruce Tutvedt, who characterized the new Republican stance as “very authoritarian politics, top-down — no tolerance for a Republican like me.”

While the Democrats had held onto the governor’s office for 16 years, that ended in 2021 as Republicans steadily gained ground.

The Regiers turned their attention not just to defeating Democrats but to ousting Republicans who did not fall into line.

In one race, the Regiers joined with anti-abortion activists to create a political action committee called Doctors for a Healthy Montana. Matt Regier was the treasurer, according to campaign finance records. Keith and Matt Regier accounted for two of the group’s five donors.

Among the committee’s targets was Representative Joel Krautter, a Republican from the eastern Montana community of Sidney who had voted to expand Medicaid. The committee leased a large billboard that showed a picture of a baby with the message: “Joel Krautter voted for taxpayer funded abortions.” Mr. Krautter, who opposes abortion, objected to the characterization.

“I thought it was bogus, but these people don’t care too much,” Mr. Krautter said. He lost in the 2020 Republican primary to a more conservative candidate.

Then last fall, in a private caucus vote, Matt Regier narrowly emerged as House speaker. It was a result that shocked some Republican lawmakers. Some were queasy about the direction that the party was set to take.

It did not take long: A text message went out inviting Republican women to a meeting in Mr. Regier’s office, according to two people who were in attendance.

Mr. Regier wanted to talk about Ms. Zephyr, who had been newly elected from Missoula. He asked the women what steps the House should take to manage the chamber’s bathrooms in Ms. Zephyr’s presence.

Mallerie Stromswold, who was among the Republicans at the meeting, said she was surprised that such an issue was one of Mr. Regier’s first orders of business. But some of the women in the room expressed concerns about sharing private quarters with Ms. Zephyr, she said, and a decision was made to add locks to the bathroom so that one person could use the whole facility, with several stalls, in private.

“I was the only one who openly had a problem with the conversation,” said Ms. Stromswold, who has since left the Legislature.

Once the session began in January, Keith Regier caused a national stir when he submitted a draft resolution calling for Congress to investigate alternatives to reservations for Native Americans; the resolution said the current system had caused “confusion, acrimony and animosity.” He later withdrew it.

Republicans also began advancing the bills on transgender issues, moving many of them through the Regier-led judiciary committees. As the bill prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors moved toward passage, Ms. Zephyr warned that the measure would be “tantamount to torture.”

“I hope the next time there’s an invocation, when you bow your heads in prayer, you see the blood on your hands,” she said. Matt Regier responded by refusing to recognize her in floor discussions. Later, a crowd began shouting, “Let her speak,” and Mr. Regier ordered people to clear the chamber. Ms. Zephyr raised her microphone in solidarity with the demonstrators.

Ms. Zephyr was barred from the House chamber and spent the rest of the session in a hallway. Matt Regier confronted her there last week and tried to have her moved to an office, but she remained outside near the snack bar.

Ms. Zephyr said the effort to “silence” her was an “affront to democracy” and vowed to fight it.

“The Montana State House is the people’s House, not Speaker Regier’s, and I’m determined to defend the right of the people to have their voices heard,” she said in a statement.

Keith Regier said he had long been misunderstood for his remarks all those years ago about pregnant cows, offered in support of his bill to make it a homicide to harm a pregnant woman whose fetus then dies.

“If unfinished buildings and unborn calves have a value in Montana, shouldn’t unborn children have a value?” Mr. Regier said as part of his cow analogy.

But opponents saw the 2011 legislation as a back door effort to undercut abortion, and it was vetoed by the state’s Democratic governor. His successor, also a Democrat, allowed a diluted version of the bill to become law two years later.

Republican lawmakers under the Regiers’ leadership have approved several new abortion restrictions, including a ban on the procedures after 20 weeks. The courts have ruled that the state’s constitutional right to privacy protects access to abortion, and new lawsuits are pending.

Keith Regier also defended Republican House members’ vote to bar Ms. Zephyr from the floor, saying her “blood on your hands” remark was inappropriate, and that she had taken it further by encouraging protests in the chamber.

“We need to be careful of what we say,” he said. “If we are offensive, you say sorry.”

Ms. Zephyr never apologized, but she did file a lawsuit, aided by the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana and others, to regain access to the chamber before it recessed. A judge rejected the effort.

For this round, the Regiers had won.

Keith Regier said he and his children were doing no more than what they had been elected to do. “I guess people know our family and identify with our values and want us to come and represent them.”

...for I have sworn

upon the altar of god

eternal hostility

against every form of tyranny

over the mind of man.

Thomas Jefferson

Today's Wingnut & A Quote

Happy to discuss and debate and debunk whatever religiousness you care to bandy about - as long as we're just some people talking and passing the time. But when it comes to what we should be doing to govern ourselves, I'll thank you to keep your imaginary friends to yourself.

Notice how their god always agrees with everything the fanatics have to say, and everything they do has their god's full support.

No matter what they say or do, it's because their god told them it was either OK or (more often than not) mandatory. In that regard, how are the god-knobbers any different from the Son Of Sam killer?

"Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United
States of America," Preface, 1787-1788

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?

Karma's Only A Bitch When You Are

The pinch-face blue-nosed prigs never quite get the whole thing about equal justice and even-handed administration of the law.

They always try to set it up so their side gets what they want and everybody else can go whistle for it.

So far, it's always come back around to bite 'em in the ass.

So far.

A Utah parent says the Bible contains porn and should be removed from school libraries. 

Here’s their full challenge.

The parent writes that the book should be considered indecent under Utah’s new book banning law, after seeing the other titles that have been pulled.

Frustrated by the books being removed from school libraries, a Utah parent says there’s one that hasn’t been challenged yet, but that they believe should be, for being “one of the most sex-ridden books around.”

So they’ve submitted a request for their school district in Davis County to now review the Bible for any inappropriate content.

“Incest, onanism, bestiality, prostitution, genital mutilation, fellatio, dildos, rape, and even infanticide,” the parent wrote in their request, listing topics they found concerning in the religious text. “You’ll no doubt find that the Bible, under Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-1227, has ‘no serious values for minors’ because it’s pornographic by our new definition.”

The code cited is the Utah law passed in 2022 to ban any books containing “pornographic or indecent” content from Utah schools, both in libraries and in the classroom. It came after outcry from conservative parents groups, who have been pushing to have titles removed.

The Salt Lake Tribune obtained a copy of the parent’s petition for the book review of the Bible late Tuesday after submitting a public records request for it on March 9, asking for an expedited response, which was denied. Davis School District did not respond to The Tribune’s request for comment then, but returned a call late Wednesday.

District spokesperson Christopher Williams repeated what he’s told other media outlets: “We don’t differentiate between one request and another. We see that as the work that we do.”

He said the Bible challenge has been given to a committee to review; the process typically takes 60 days, but Williams said the committee is not done with this request due to a backlog as more parents have been questioning books.

According to the copy of the request, the parent submitted their challenge on Dec. 11. The district removed the parent’s name, address and contact information, citing privacy reasons. The parent also attached to their request an eight-page listing of passages from the Bible that they found to be offensive and worth reviewing.

Their request is to specifically remove the book from shelves at Davis High School.

“Get this PORN out of our schools,” the parent wrote. “If the books that have been banned so far are any indication for way lesser offenses, this should be a slam dunk.”

The parent points to action by Utah Parents United, a right-leaning group that has led the efforts to challenge books here for being inappropriate. It has largely centered on texts written by and about the LGBTQ community and people of color.

Based on the new Utah law, something is indecent if it includes explicit sexual arousal, stimulation, masturbation, intercourse, sodomy or fondling. According to state attorneys, material doesn’t have to be “taken as a whole” in those situations or left on the shelf during a review. If there is a scene involving any of those acts, it should be immediately removed.

Those who have opposed that effort have said it steps on the First Amendment right for kids to access materials, especially from diverse viewpoints.

In submitting the online form for the book review, the parent echoes that, writing: “I thank the Utah Legislature and Utah Parents United for making this bad faith process so much easier and way more efficient. Now we can all ban books and you don’t even need to read them or be accurate about it. Heck, you don’t even need to see the book!”

(The parent does note, though, that they read the Bible before suggesting it be removed.)

The parent argues that Utah Parents United is “a white supremacist hate group” that is stepping on education and the freedom to access literature. They say that’s particularly worrisome in Davis School District, which has been “under investigation for being racist.”

Davis was investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice, which released a report in 2021 finding that the district intentionally ignored “serious and widespread” racial harassment in its schools for years.

Utah Parents United responded to a request for comment from The Tribune on Wednesday, saying: “We believe in following the law. That’s all we’re asking schools to do.”

The group has previously said that its members are not challenging books based on race or LGBTQ relationships. But they have repeatedly targeted the same titles in school districts across the state, including “The Bluest Eye” by Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison and “Gender Queer,” a graphic novel about the author’s journey of self-identity.

Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who sponsored the bill to remove pornographic books from school libraries, called the request to pull the Bible “antics that drain school resources.”

“There was a purpose to the bill and this kind of stuff, it’s very unfortunate,” he said. “There are any number of studies that directly link sexualization and hyper-sexualization with sexual exploitation and abuse. Certainly, those are things we don’t want in schools.”

He said his measure was not meant to ban books but to limit books based on what’s age appropriate for children in schools.

“If a parent still wants their kid to read a certain book, they can go buy it on Amazon or at a bookstore or even check it out at their public library,” Ivory added.

Williams with Davis School District noted that parents can also call their child’s school and limit their account, specifically, so the student cannot check out listed titles. Only 10 parents have done that across the district, Williams noted.

When asked specifically if the challenge on the Bible had merit, Ivory said: “I guess the schools will get to burn time and resource to determine that.”

He also acknowledged the parent who submitted the request “really had to go through their Bible study” to come up with the list of examples they found inappropriate. He added: “I hope they paid attention to other parts of the Bible, though.”

The eight-page list starts with passages from Genesis that mention sex, alcohol, nudity, rape and incest. A quote from Genesis 19:8 reads: “See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish.”

Genesis 19:35-36 adds: “Then they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father.”

The other citations highlight similar themes, including passages mentioning “whoredom” and “breasts” and “fornication.”

Ivory said he sees the request as a political stunt, not a serious request. He suggested: “For people to minimize that and to make a mockery of it is very sad.”

The books he said he was worried about in drafting the measure included graphic novels with drawings that legislative attorneys advised him he couldn’t show in public meetings because “they would violate state and federal obscenity laws.” That includes “Gender Queer,” a novel about the author’s journey of self-identity that has some scenes of illustrated figures engaging in sexual conduct.

Last year in Alpine School District, 52 books flagged by parents were pulled from shelves while they were reviewed. One of the books on the list seemed possibly misidentified simply because of its title. It’s called “SEX: If You’re Scared of the Truth Don’t Read This!” The author argues in favor of abstinence, which is what is taught by law in Utah schools.

The Bible wasn’t challenged there and doesn’t appear to have been questioned yet in other Utah school districts where books have been removed, including nine in Canyons School District and several in Washington County School District.

Utah Parents United curriculum director Brooke Stephens also filed a police report with both Farmington Police Department and Davis County Sheriff’s Office last year, according to copies provided to The Tribune, to report a list of 47 books in Davis School District. None of those were religious texts.

The school district, according to the spokesperson, has the Bible, Book of Mormon, Torah and Quran available to check out.

Today's Dumbest Fuckin' Thing

It's against my religion, so I can't do it.      ✅

It's against my religion, so you can't do it. 🖕🏼

How the fuck does SCOTUS take up a case, and decide the law when there's no 'injury', which means there's nothing to be remedied?

Wedding websites are the latest gay rights battleground in Colorado

The Supreme Court on Monday will consider whether a web designer’s refusal to produce same-sex-union sites violates public-accommodation law

LITTLETON, Colo. — When the Supreme Court ruled narrowly in 2018 for a Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple, the justices avoided declaring a clear winner in the cultural conflict between LGBTQ rights advocates and those who say their religious beliefs forbid countenancing same-sex marriage.

It turns out that the next such case, which the Supreme Court takes up Monday, was just a short drive away.

About five miles from Jack Phillips’s Masterpiece Cakeshop, the focus of the battle four years ago, is a cheerful office in a nondescript building. Graphic designer Lorie Smith says the same Colorado public accommodation law that Phillips challenged, which forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, also violates her deeply held religious views and free-speech rights.

Smith wants to expand her business to create wedding websites but only to tell the stories of brides and grooms “through God’s lens.” And she wants to be able to tell same-sex couples on her 303 Creative LLC website that she will not create such platforms for them.

“Colorado is censoring and compelling my speech and really forcing me to pour my creativity into creating messages that violate my convictions,” Smith said in a recent interview, with one of her lawyers sitting nearby. “There are some messages I cannot create.”

Two courts have ruled against Smith, saying Colorado has a compelling interest to require that businesses that are open to the public serve all of the state’s citizens.

No matter how authentic Smith’s broad free-speech argument may be, state Attorney General Philip J. Weiser (D) told the Supreme Court in his brief, it would encompass not only a business’s religious beliefs “but also objections motivated by ignorance, whim, bigotry, caprice, and more — including pure expressions of racial, sexist, or anti-religious hatred.”

When the court took Smith’s case, it declined to hear Smith’s claim that Colorado’s law violates her religious freedom. Nor did it agree to hear her request to overturn Supreme Court precedent on neutral laws that might have implications for religious believers.

Instead, the justices propose to answer this question: “Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”

And some court observers say that decision could have even more impact.

Smith is represented by the same conservative legal organization that defended Phillips. Her case has been years in the making. But it arrives at a moment of discordancy over the LGBTQ rights movement.

Nationally, Congress is on the verge of providing landmark federal recognition of same-sex marriage, a step unthinkable even a decade ago. But the effort is motivated significantly by fear that the Supreme Court might one day renege on the constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry that it found in 2015.

In Colorado, residents last year saw their history-making governor, Jared Polis, marry first gentleman Marlon Reis in an intimate ceremony still grand enough to merit high society coverage. But last month, the LGBTQ community, and the nation, was shocked when a gunman stormed a gay nightclub in Colorado Springs, shooting dozens of patrons and killing five.

Some wonder how the state has come to play such a prominent role in the Supreme Court’s consideration of whether same-sex marriage will be treated differently from traditional marriage.

The Colorado legislature never approved same-sex marriage; instead, it was decreed by federal courts. But far earlier, by 2008, the state had outlawed discrimination against gay people in housing, public accommodation and employment, and it established civil rights protections on the basis of gender identity.

“It is really wild to think about how far we’ve come,” said Garrett Royer, the director of One Colorado, an advocacy group for the LGBTQ community. But he added that he thinks the success of the movement has made the state something of a target.

“I think the conservative movement is looking at, how do we chip away at this very progressive nondiscrimination law in Colorado?” Royer said. “And that has implications at the national level to take back these protections.”

In an interview, Smith declined to answer whether she thinks same-sex marriage should be legal, and she said her case is personal, not political. She works for LGTBQ clients on other topics, she said. A victory for her, she said, would be just as valuable to a gay artist who does not want to create for a cause in which she does not believe.

The case comes before a court much changed since the 2018 decision, which left the Colorado law undisturbed but said officials enforced it unfairly against Phillips because of religious bias on the part of some.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote that thread-the-needle opinion as well as the court’s landmark decisions on gay rights, including marriage, has retired. Also gone is a dissenter in the Phillips case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was the first justice to officiate at a same-sex wedding and was an advocate who warned that treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex ones would afford the new unions only a “skim-milk” version of marriage.

Kennedy and Ginsburg were replaced by more-conservative justices on a court that has been protective of free speech rights and increasingly sympathetic to challenges brought by religious interests. It is highly unlikely that the court took Smith’s case simply to affirm the lower-court rulings.

Kristen Waggoner, the president, chief executive and general counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative organization representing Smith, said the court need not break new ground to rule for the businesswoman.

“Public accommodation laws and the First Amendment have coexisted peacefully for years and years, for decades,” Waggoner said in an interview. “This case isn’t about whether they will continue to do so; it’s just about whether the court will continue to follow the precedent that’s already set.”

Waggoner’s brief relies on seminal First Amendment cases that found that the government may not, in her words, “compel speakers to endorse certain messages and eschew others.”

In 1995, the court unanimously ruled — in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston — that a public accommodation law could not be used to compel organizers of Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day parade to admit a gay rights group. And Waggoner’s brief begins with the court’s famous 1943 decision that Jehovah’s Witnesses students in West Virginia could not be compelled to salute the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Colorado’s law “turns those principles upside down, such that artists must now speak government-sanctioned messages, stop speaking their own preferred message, or leave the market in which they hope to participate,” Waggoner writes.

Colorado responds that even if the websites Smith wants to produce are expressive — she has not actually accepted commission for one to avoid running afoul of the law — she is conflating free speech with selling a product. The state’s residents should not have to worry about whether a business will reject them “because of who they are.”

The law’s application “does not turn on what a business chooses to sell,” Weiser writes in the state’s brief. “It simply requires that, once a business offers a product or service to the public, the business sells it to all.”

Smith, the state says, is free to offer “only websites that include biblical quotes describing marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” But then the company “must sell whatever it offers to customers regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristic . . . Both believers and atheists can choose to buy its websites with biblical quotes.”

The state says that Smith proposes to post on her company website the message that “I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman.”

Under Colorado’s protection of gay citizens, Weiser wrote, “this amounts to an announcement of illegal discrimination similar to a ‘white applicants only’ sign.”

It is also not enough that other companies would provide similar marriage services to same-sex couples, the state says. The court made that clear decades ago, ruling against a motel that wanted to serve only White guests and a restaurant owner who said an integrated dining room would violate his religious beliefs.

Smith’s lawyer responds that “throwing in racism is simply an attempt to shut down the debate and frankly it’s offensive to malign people like that.” She said Smith would create a website for an interracial couple or an interfaith couple — so long as the couple was heterosexual.

What matters, Waggoner said, is not whether Smith is creating speech for profit — “our First Amendment rights aren’t contingent on whether you’re trying to earn a living” — but that it is a custom project that reflects Smith’s beliefs.

Even a finished product might be protected, Waggoner said: Think of the rock star who doesn’t want his recorded songs played at the rallies of a politician he abhors.

Smith is supported by a long list of religious organizations and academics who say creating custom speech is different from past public accommodation cases.

Law professors Dale Carpenter, a supporter of gay rights, and Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist, said in a friend of the court brief that a line can be drawn. On the protected side of those who create expression related to weddings: “web site creators, writers, photographers, painters, singers, and similar speakers.” On the other, those who perform distinct activities “such as baking, clothing design, architecture, and other media.”

The state of Colorado is supported by the Justice Department, which, under the Biden administration, has switched its position since the Phillips case. Also supporting Colorado are the free-speech-defending American Civil Liberties Union and others.

The Colorado law does not deserve the court’s most exacting scrutiny, the ACLU says, because it is aimed at making services open to all, not censoring Smith’s opinions about marriage.

It never ceases to amaze me that any business would seek to narrow the pool of potential clients. Are you trying to tell me you're such a fucking whiz-bang entrepreneur that you can ignore the double digit slice of people who might want to hire your firm, but can't because they're LGBTQ+ (or strong sensible allies of that community), and they'd rather share their toothbrush with a leper that do business with a slug like you?

I admit there's an exception or two, and a yeah-but here and there, but if you're in the business of Public Accommodation, then you fucking well better accommodate the public - all of it.

Of course, Cynical Mike thinks maybe we're seeing an attempt to use the justice system as a way to advertise.

For almost literally the 5 or maybe 10 thousand dollar ad budget, you stand to get instant national exposure. That's money well-spent when you're in the website business, which makes your reach nearly without limit.

You can recoup your cost rather quickly, plus, you can figure on plenty of folks being sympathetic to the cause and more than willing to donate some of their disposable income to help out a fellow Christian in her hour of torment.

Today's Church & State

Contrary to popular memes, Amy Coney Barrett is not a Handmaid. She's a full-blown god-knobbin' zombie zealot.

Revealed: leaked video shows Amy Coney Barrett’s secretive faith group drove women to tears

Wife of founder of People of Praise says members ‘were always crying’ during discussions about women’s subservience to men

The People of Praise, a secretive Christian faith group that counts the conservative supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett as a member, considered women’s obedience and subservience to men as one of its central early teachings, according to leaked remarks and writings of the wife of one of the group’s founders.

A leaked video of a recent private People of Praise event, marking its 50th anniversary, shows Dorothy Ranaghan explaining how some female followers of the faith group cried intensely in reaction to the group’s early teachings on “headship” and the “roles of men and women”, in which men are considered divinely ordained as the “head” of the family and dominant to women.

Asked in an interview during the anniversary event about the years after the group’s members first made a “covenant” to join People of Praise in the early 1970s, Dorothy Ranaghan said: “Some of the women – who are still in my women’s group, as a matter of fact – were wearing sunglasses all the time, because they were always crying and would have to hold on to their chairs every time somebody started teaching, because ‘What are we going to hear this time?’”

She then added, as the audience and her interviewer laughed: “But it all worked out just fine in the end.”

The comment marks the first time a statement about some women’s negative early responses to “headship” teachings has been published. The leaked footage was shared with the Guardian by a source who asked to remain anonymous.

Former members of People of Praise, many of whom are critical of the group’s dominance over members’ lives, have described the group as calling for complete obedience of women to their husbands.

The Guardian has previously reported that one of the group’s former members described in a sworn affidavit filed in the 1990s that Kevin Ranaghan – a group co-founder and Dorothy’s husband – exerted almost total control over the former member when she was living in the couple’s household, including making all decisions about her finances and dating relationships. The group also embraces traditions like encouraging members to speak in tongues, and performing exorcisms.

"Women in my group were always crying"

Barrett, who lived in the Ranaghan household while she attended law school at Notre Dame, has never publicly disclosed or discussed her membership in the Christian charismatic sect, where her father had a leadership role and where she previously served as a “handmaid”. Barrett has said she is a “faithful Catholic” whose religious beliefs would not “bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge”.

But while Barrett’s personal faith-based opposition to abortion rights and Roe v Wade were known before her 2020 confirmation and before she joined a majority of justices in overturning the landmark ruling that protected abortion rights nationally, less is known about the culture in which Barrett was raised and its views on women and childbirth, suffering, and their role in society.

Barrett has never addressed how the reversal of Roe might affect a woman’s life. But during oral argument in Dobbs v Jackson, the supreme court case that ultimately overturned Roe, Barrett referred specifically in questions to the availability of so-called “safe haven” laws across the US, which allow mothers to abandon newborns in designated locations without the risk of punishment.

Barrett suggested that the availability of such legal protections for new mothers meant that while women might be forced to give birth if Roe were overturned, they would not necessarily be forced to become parents, or be burdened by parenthood.

The line of reasoning was decried as “cruel and dangerous” by pro-choice activists and writers, who said that seeing safe haven laws as a viable replacement for reproductive choice ignored real health risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth, and ignored women’s rights to bodily autonomy.

Barrett’s question also appears to echo the People of Praise culture in which she was raised and has chosen to remain a part of, which emphasizes the importance of childbirth, pregnancy and the abandonment of autonomy and privacy it supposedly entails, as a core part of what it means to be a woman.

In her early writings, Dorothy Ranaghan emphasized the need for women to be “self-giving, responsible and reserved”. In a 1978 article that appeared in New Covenant magazine, called “Fully a Woman”, childbearing is described as a “central reality of womanhood” that “determines our presence in the world”, even for those who “by chance or choice” did not have children.

“The child in the womb expands the mother’s body, changing its dimensions. As her body yields, so do the borders of privacy and selfishness. Her very existence gives to another.” Women who are most admired, she wrote, “are not private persons, but are surrendered and available to care for others”.

“Pregnancy teaches a woman that others have a claim on her very person for the service of life. Rather than annihilating her, pregnancy makes her a new person, radiant and strong: a mother,” she wrote.

Once women gave birth in the People of Praise, work to care for them is divided on gender lines, according to Adrian Reimers, a Catholic theological critic and early member of the People of Praise who was dismissed in 1985 and wrote about his experience.

Reimers’ book critiquing the group, called Not Reliable Guides, states that men in People of Praise “were quietly taught by their heads and leaders not to change or rinse out diapers” and that women’s emotions were “distrusted”. Pastoral problems were often addressed by asking a woman where she was in her menstrual cycle.

Women, Reimers wrote, played a “decidedly secondary role to men” and a married woman was “expected always to reflect the fact that she is under her husband’s authority” and under his pastoral care. A guide on the group’s approach to outreach in the Caribbean, Reimers said, explicitly stated: “We should probably deal with the Caribbean matriarchal system by quietly developing an alternate rather than encouraging a confrontation.”

Reimers has written that he believed that the People of Praise’s views on women were rooted not in the Catholic tradition, but rather in Kevin Ranaghan’s involvement in the 1970s National Men’s Shepherds Conference, which was co-sponsored by Protestant leaders and believed that men were ordained by God to lead.

“It is no surprise that all these communities see feminism as one of the principle [sic] ideological evils of our time,” Reimers wrote.

In a statement released after publication of this article, Dorothy Ranaghan said: “My remarks were meant as a joke as most of the people in the room understood. I would never be part of a group that oppresses women and I never have been part of one. But I have been proud to be one of the women leaders in the People of Praise for more than 50 years.”

She added: “I’ve been in the company of many strong women – lawyers, doctors, educators, businesswomen, wives and mothers, and we are in no way oppressed or dominated. We are responsible for our own decisions; we are free and happy. Furthermore, it is unconscionable to me that any of the more than 40 men and women who have lived with our family over the years would consider my husband an oppressor. As those who know him would agree, he is a kind, gentle man who listens carefully and respects the opinions of women and men and he always has.”

Barrett did not respond to a request for comment.

Today's SCOTUS Fuckup

Standing at midfield after losing another football game and offering up a little prayer is one thing. Making it a spectacle - which puts pressure on others to do likewise - is another thing altogether.

It's not about you having the right to express your commitment to your imaginary friends. It's about some kid who will eventually get beat up for not having the "right" religiousness, or for resisting the pressure outright, or for stating his own belief that there is no god.

We know it's going to happen because it's been happening for more than 20 centuries.

By looking the other way while a school district employee passive-aggressively proselytizes kids, the administration puts its imprimatur on the establishment of religion.

There's a rule against that, and SCOTUS just chipped away at it.

AlterNet:

'Beyond shameful': Legal experts slam Neil Gorsuch for using 'flat-out, knowing lie' in SCOTUS ruling

Many people from legal experts to court watchers to journalists to ordinary Americans on social media are criticizing Justice Neil Gorsuch for his majority opinion in a decision siding with a former high school football coach. That coach sued after the school district ordered him to stop praying after every game at the 50-yard line. Justice Gorsuch’s opinion, as many are noticing, appears to be based on facts that are false. Several are accusing Gorsuch of just plain lying.

Justice Gorsuch claimed the coach’s First Amendment rights were violated, and that he was merely engaging in “quiet personal prayer” as he knelt.

Gorsuch uses the word “quiet” 14 times, as The Washington Post’s Paul Waldman notes.

“Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a high school football coach because he knelt at midfield after games to offer a quiet prayer of thanks,” Justice Gorsuch writes as he begins his majority opinion. “Mr. Kennedy prayed during a period when school employees were free to speak with a friend, call for a reservation at a restaurant, check email, or attend to other personal matters. He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied. Still, the Bremerton School District disciplined him anyway. It did so because it thought anything less could lead a reasonable observer to conclude (mistakenly) that it endorsed Mr. Kennedy’s religious beliefs. That reasoning was misguided.”

“The contested exercise here does not involve leading prayers with the team,” Gorsuch continues (despite photos that appear to suggest otherwise), “the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students after three games in October 2015.”

These are the photos of Coach Kennedy that Justice Sonia Sotomayor included in her dissent:

“They aren’t even trying to use reason anymore,” former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade laments:

And Vox’s Ian Millhiser makes clear what just happened: “The Supreme Court hands the religious right a big victory by lying about the facts of a case.”

Calling the decision “a big victory for the religious right,” Millhiser writes that’s “only because Gorsuch misrepresents the facts of the case.”

- more -

Bring on the Satanic Temple.

Everything you need to know about the Satanic Temple, which the US government just officially recognized as an organized religion

• The US government has recognized the Satanic Temple as a tax-exempt organized religion.
• The Satanic temple is a non-theistic religious group.
• It is based out of Salem, Massachusetts, but it has branches across the US and world.
• Founded in 2013, it has roots in political activism.
• It is different from the Church of Satan.