Personhood Can Wait

I’m happy to admit today that I was wrong. I underestimated the majority of the good people in the state of Mississippi, even those who harbor thoughtful anti-abortion religious and political sentiments. For now at least, fertilized eggs will not be deemed people too in Mississippi. Personhood can wait.

Mississippi voters soundly defeated a ballot initiative that would have established: "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization." The "personhood" ballot initiative was rejected by more than 55% -- a 3 to 2 margin -- in the hardest of hard core Bible belt states, where 80% of the population are against abortion.

Now, anti-abortion zealots will not be able to use the proposed mandate to provoke a challenge to the nationwide abortion rights of women as set forth in the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

The Mississippi Baptist Convention, the state's largest Christian denomination backed the proposal. The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi and the General Conference of the United Methodist Church opposed it even though the church is generally against abortion. The Mississippi State Medical Association refused to take sides, while other medical groups opposed it.

A Colorado-based group called Personhood USA successfully got the proposal on the Mississippi ballot hoping that a win would send shockwaves around the country. They’re also trying to put similar initiatives on ballots in Florida, Montana, Ohio and Oregon in 2012. They want to eventually make abortion illegal everywhere in America. But Colorado voters rejected similar proposals in 2008 and again in 2010.

The proposal gave some of the most ardent abortion opponents pause because of the potential unintended and unforeseen consequences of its implementation. Supporters hoped to force their religious beliefs on women, making them endure unwanted pregnancies, including even those caused by rape or incest.

It would have resulted not only in outlawing all abortions in the state, but also many types of birth control would have been deemed illegal, including the morning after pill and intrauterine devices. Doctors would have been deterred from performing in vitro fertilization for infertile couples since they would no longer be able to discard unused embryos.

Mississippi is already one of the toughest states in the country on abortion. There is only one clinic in the entire state where abortions are performed. Parental or judicial consent for any minor is required before an abortion. Mandatory in-person counseling and a 24-hour waiting period is also required.

But the good people of Mississippi, in the final analysis, were smart enough to stop short of implementing the radical and delusional concept of equal rights for eggs because they realize it defies all logic, reason and common sense. Its one thing to make a law prohibiting abortions, which at least has some rational basis; but quite another thing to define an egg as a person equal in law to other persons.

They realized the potential pitfalls that this law would have created, allowing the long arm of the state to actually penetrate inside the bodies of women, hopelessly conflicting with their constitutional rights by recognizing a person living inside the body of another person for nine months.

They decided not to give the state a legitimate legal interest in the sex lives and reproductive status of every woman of child bearing age and every man who copulates with her. The state pregnancy authorities could dictate virtually every aspect and activity of her life during the entire pregnancy if this proposal became law.

Every miscarriage would have required a formal coroner’s inquest and judicial investigation into the cause of the ‘person’s’ death to determine whether it was a homicide, an accident, or natural means. The egg would have acquired the right to a lawyer from the moment of conception. After all, it would have enjoyed constitutional rights.

So the voters of Mississippi concluded, and rightly so, that eggs should not be people too.

Personhood can wait.

The Truth Will Get You Fired

"Why don't you just poke me in the eye with a needle? You've got to be kidding me … I'm sorry, we just gave you $11.6 billion and now you're telling me, 'I don't really care'?"

That’s what Major General Peter Fuller, deputy commander of the NATO training mission in Afghanistan, had to say about President Hamid Karzai and his Afghan government in a recent interview with Politico concerning Karzai’s earlier statement to a journalist that Afghanistan would side with Pakistan if it were to go to war with the United States.

Karzai's statements are "erratic," said General Fuller. Major players in the Afghan government are "isolated from reality." “You can teach a man how to fish, or you can give them a fish," Fuller explained. "We're giving them fish while they're learning, and they want more fish! [They say,] 'I like swordfish, how come you're giving me cod?' Guess what? Cod's on the menu today."

For this candid bit of truth telling, Fuller was relieved of his duties "effective immediately," according to a statement released by General John R. Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

"These unfortunate comments are neither indicative of our current solid relationship with the government of Afghanistan, its leadership, or our joint commitment to prevail here in Afghanistan, said Allen. “The Afghan people are an honorable people, and comments such as these will not keep us from accomplishing our most critical and shared mission-bringing about a stable, peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan."

Solid relationship; what solid relationship? Hamid Karzai is crooked enough to make a corkscrew look like a three penny nail. In his crafty Afghan criminal mind, a solid relationship with the United States means him receiving power and money, while the U.S. receives nothing, period!

And now he tells the world that he’d side with Pakistan against the United States if push came to shove. Little wonder that General Fuller might liken it to a poke in the eye with a needle. That’s exactly what it is.

What kind of friend is Hamid Karzai? If it weren’t for U.S. involvement in his corrupt administration propping him and his cronies up, and the deaths of thousands or our soldiers, Hamid Karzai, assuming he were lucky enough to still be alive, would be living in a cave and picking poppy flowers somewhere in the Afghan hinterland.

Karzai takes our blood and treasure while stabbing us in the back. We should be firing him instead of General Fuller.

After ten long years in Afghanistan I thought the most critical and shared mission was to rout the Taliban for its part in harboring Al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. We did that.

But now we learn that all the billions of taxpayer dollars spent and lives lost were for “bringing about a stable, peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan." America’s prosperity is going down the toilet while America’s mission is to make Afghanistan prosperous.

I have a bit of fresh news for the Obama administration and General Allen. Afghanistan, for thousands of years, was not a stable, peaceful and prosperous nation before the Taliban took over; is not a stable, peaceful and prosperous nation now that the U.S. put Karzai and his ilk in power; and will not be a stable, peaceful and prosperous nation anytime within the foreseeable future, whether the U.S. stays or goes; and there is nothing President Obama or anyone else can do about it.

The United States has wasted its time, money and blood in Afghanistan, a backward nation of savages and criminal warlords. That is the simple truth of the matter and General Fuller should not have been fired for telling it.

In God They Lust: Part 2

Rabid religionists in Congress and their conservative activist constituents, fresh from an angry battle culminating in a superfluous reaffirmation of the In God We Trust National Motto resolution, triggered by President Obama’s reference to the original E Pluribus Unum motto in a long forgotten foreign speech, are now expressing similar outrage after the administration announced its objection to adding President Franklin Roosevelt's D-Day prayer to the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C.

Republican Congressman, Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, has offered HR 2070, a bill entitled “World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011," which would add the full text of Roosevelt’s D-Day prayer to the memorial. In short, he wants to alter the present memorial as it is now to include his Christian prayer. Naturally, the bill is expected to get the full support of the House.

"It is unconscionable that the Obama administration would stand in the way of honoring our nation's distinguished World War II veterans," Johnson whined.

Huh? I thought that was the whole purpose of the memorial – to honor WWII vets. The Obama administration isn’t objecting to or standing in the way of that.

Robert Abbey, director of the Bureau of Land Management, said any plaque or inscription of the prayer would "dilute" the memorials central message and therefore "should not be altered." "It is not a judgment as to the merit of this new commemoration, simply that altering the Memorial in this way, as proposed in HR 2070, will necessarily dilute this elegant memorials central message and its ability to clearly convey that message to move, educate, and inspire its many visitors," he explained.

Moreover, Abbey told lawmakers that altering the memorial would be contrary to the Commemorative Works Act -- a law that prohibits "encroachment by a new commemoration on an existing one." It also respects the design of the "completed work of civic art without alteration or addition of new elements."

But Congressman Johnson would have none of that, telling Fox News that the administration's objection should "give all Americans a great deal of concern." "For there to be objections to demonstrating a faith in God at critical points in our nation's history -- particularly D-Day -- boggles my mind," he said. "I was very surprised they were going to object."

"This is further evidence that the administration has created an environment that is hostile towards American history -- but in particular towards Christianity," blubbered Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

"I hope America wakes up and realizes what this administration is doing to this country and how they want to radically and fundamentally change America," Perkins cried. "They want to erase every aspect of America's heritage." "Any president, any official in history that has embraced Christianity, is no longer welcome in this administration. That's the environment they are creating."  

Gee, and I always thought that President Obama was a staunch Christian man. He reaffirmed and continued George W. Bush’s Office of Faith Based Partnerships. He goes to church every Sunday with his wife and kids. He concludes every single speech with “God bless you and God bless the United States of America.” What’s anti-Christian about that?

Now we find that our new president is (gasp!) “hostile toward American history” and even “in particular towards Christianity” because he objects to altering and diluting the central message of the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. with yet another of the thousands upon thousands of symbols and references to Christianity in memorials all across the country.

So the social conservative right wing religionists do what they always do when they think the nation isn’t infused with enough good old fashioned evangelical Christian religion – they waste more taxpayer dollars debating and passing frivolous laws in furtherance of their ultimate American Christian theocracy.

In God They Lust.

In God They Lust

President Barack Obama gave a speech in Jakarta, Indonesia, last year telling his audience that the national motto of the United States of America is E Pluribus Unum.

From the reaction he immediately got from mentally disturbed members in Congress, one might have thought that the president had committed bloody murder.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) and 42 other livid members of Congress sent Obama a letter asking him to correct the error. “Not only did the president refuse to respond to our letter, but still on the White House website they have up the incorrect national motto,” Forbes complained to Fox News. “It does concern us,” whined the congressman.

Forbes also complained about certain “inaccuracies and omissions” in the new Capitol Visitor Center, accusing historians of: “sanitizing the public building of references to our national motto – including replacing the inscription of ‘In God We Trust,’ inscribed above the Speaker’s Rostrum with stars in a replica of the House Chamber – and cropping an actual picture of the chamber so you could not see the words ‘In God We Trust.’’

The omissions were later corrected after Congress intervened, said Forbes.

“There’s been no motto in U.S. history that’s been more inspirational than In God We Trust,” he piously declared, adding that he felt it was appropriate for members of Congress to “firmly declare our trust in God.”

So the House of Representatives got together last Tuesday night, at the request of Congressman Forbes, and passed by a 396-9 vote, a bi-partisan resolution reaffirming In God We Trust as the official motto of the United States. It was a direct response to President Obama’s refusal to correct the remarks he made which misstated the motto as E pluribus Unum instead of In God We Trust.

The resolution not only affirms In God We Trust as the national motto, but it also “encourages its display in public buildings and government institutions,” according to Forbes. Predictably, it was roundly condemned by the American Humanist Association and other Atheist groups who deem the motto unconstitutional and non-inclusive.

Forbes explained that the motto has been under attack over the past three years, warning of a “disturbing trend of inaccuracies and omissions, misunderstandings of church and state, rogue court challenges and efforts to remove God from the public domain by unelected bureaucrats.”

“There are a very small number of people, but unfortunately very vocal people who really want to attack faith in every element of the nation,” Forbes added.  “But we’re not going to go quietly into the night.”

When have these foaming at the mouth religionists ever gone quietly?

Of course, standing alone, this national motto controversy is a trivial issue, however, if I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times, these people – a 396 to 9 majority of lawmakers -- will never be satisfied until the United States of America is a Christian theocracy.

The original intent of the founding fathers together with the Constitution may be damned and discarded in the process as far as they are concerned.

President Obama might not always be right, but this time he was, and it’s about time that these religious fanatics faced up to the fundamental historical facts.

Established by an act of Congress in 1782, i.e. by our founding fathers, the United States of America already had the perfect motto: The Latin phrase: “E. Pluribus Unum” -- (From Many One) -- referring to the original 13 colonies combining to form the United States of America.

This motto is inclusive. It offends no one. It describes our nation accurately. It makes metaphorical sense. It fits the historical facts.

But during the Cold War communist hysteria of the mid 1950’s, President Eisenhower and a Christian religionist Congress signed “In God We Trust” into law in 1956 as the new official motto of the United States. It’s a phrase taken from a line in the Star Spangled Banner, composed by Francis Scott Key during the War of 1812, which subsequently became the national anthem.

In God We Trust doesn’t fit the historical facts. It’s divisive. It offends a growing non-religious minority. It fails completely to describe the nation as it was founded. It’s metaphorical nonsense. Who can even define what it means?

This nation was not founded upon any trust in God. The early history of our republic is exceedingly well documented. God had nothing to do with it.

The two most important founding documents are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Neither even mention the word “God” much less attribute any trust in Him. To the contrary, the founders specified in the Bill of Rights that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

“We the People” created the United States. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States were inspired by the people. The Revolutionary War was fought by the people. These are the undeniable historical facts. There was no divine intervention.

None of the enumerated Articles in the Constitution are derived from the bible. There is no biblical morality in it anywhere. The people of the United States do not trust in God to choose the president and lawmakers. We the people elect them. We do not trust in God to defend our country. We rely upon the people. We do not trust in God’s laws in the bible. We abide by laws passed by the people.

We do not trust in God to provide liberty and justice for all. We choose human beings from among the people who are accountable and govern by consent of the people. We do not trust in God to supply our sustenance. We do that for ourselves.

Individuals might trust in a God – a nation cannot. We the people, as a nation, do not trust in God for anything.

So why has In God We Trust become the new national motto, and why is the Congress reaffirming what is already the law with an unnecessary resolution?

Certainly not because it is true; not because it metaphorically describes us; and not because it makes any logical sense; no; those who changed it did so because their own individual private religious faith requires public government support. They demand a government God. They need constant reassurance for their beliefs.

At the core, they don’t trust “We the People.” They don’t trust reason and logic. It threatens their faith. They aren’t satisfied with the secular government our founding fathers took such pains to create. They want it more their way; the Christian way.  

They want the Ten Commandments in their Holy Bible displayed prominently in every American courtroom. They want the state to govern everyone by enforcing those commandments, right along with all the rest of biblical morality.

They want federal, state, and local governments to promote Good Friday, Easter, Christmas, and erect Christian nativity scenes in every public square at taxpayer expense. They want Christian crosses erected and maintained in public parks.

They want all the little school children in America to recite a loyalty oath every single day affirming that this nation is “under God.” They still aren’t satisfied with how they have it now. They want to force their Christian deity down all our throats.

In God They Lust.

Discrimination in Private

Catholic University of America, a private religious academic institution located in the nation’s capitol, is presently the subject of a 60 page discrimination complaint and investigation by the Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights alleging that it is violating the rights of Muslim students by not allowing them to form a Muslim student group and not providing them rooms without Christian symbols for their daily prayers.

George Washington University Law School professor, John Banzhaf, filed the complaint on behalf of Muslim students who claim they are uncomfortable performing their prayers while surrounded by Catholic icons and symbols, such as Christ on wooden crosses, paintings of Jesus, priests, and Popes in every common room, which they find “inappropriate.”  

John Garvey, president of the university, explained that a Muslim student association would “just not [be] something that we view as an activity that we want to sponsor because we’re a Catholic institution rather than Muslim.”

The university welcomes students of all religions without offering any of them any particular special privileges or accommodations. Banzhaf admitted that the private school is not doing anything illegal by refusing to provide special rooms without Catholic symbols for Muslim prayers, but still thinks they are acting “improperly and probably with malice.”  

So what? This is a textbook example of a frivolous complaint. If Mr. Banzhaf filed this meritless 60 page load of garbage in a court of law it would be summarily dismissed with appropriate monetary sanctions against him.

Muslim students enrolled in a private Catholic school have no right to force that school to accommodate their religion; that would violate the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause.

If Muslim students want to pray outside the presence of Christian icons, they can do it in their dorm rooms or go off campus to a local Mosque. If they want to form a Muslim student organization they can do so, but without the sponsorship of their private Catholic school. If they don’t like it, they can always go to a different school.

If the school were a public university, there would not be Catholic icons in every common room; that would violate the First Amendment Establishment Clause.

If a public university accommodates the religions of its students with chapel’s and special rooms, then it must accommodate all religions. So the best solution for these Muslim students is to go to a Muslim university or a public university – not a private Catholic university.

Meanwhile, Shorter University, a private Christian university in Rome, Georgia that receives no federal funding, is forcing all of its 200 employees to sign a "personal lifestyle statement" rejecting pre-marital sex, adultery and homosexuality. Those who refuse are subject to termination.

"I think that anybody who adheres to a lifestyle that is outside of what the biblical mandate is -- what the board has passed, including the president -- would not be allowed to continue here," Don Dowless, university president explained. If employees indicate a preference for any sexual activity "not agreeable with the Bible," they will be terminated. "Our goal is not to offend people," he said. "Our goal is to declare who we are."

OK, so we know who they are. The only relevant question for me here is: why would anyone, (aside from a religious bigot, of course), in their right mind want to be an employee or student at this university?

The worst of bigots in America have a constitutional right to discriminate – in private.

Sex Crime Psychosis in Ohio

A 33-year-old Lebanon Ohio high school gym teacher was convicted last week of a sex crime felony -- 16 counts of sexual battery -- and sentenced to serve four years in prison for engaging in sex parties at her home with five of her 17-year-old male students. She faced the possibility of a much longer prison term for her “crime,” and might have been put away for decades.  

The age of consent for sex in Ohio is 16, but it's illegal for a teacher to have sex with a student.

The judge refused to buy her insanity defense in which she claimed “medical and psychological issues” resulting in her having no memory of the incidents. Those young men took advantage of her, her lawyers argued. The convict cried pitifully as she was handcuffed and led out of the courtroom.

The five male “victims,” some of them players on the school’s varsity football team, testified that she had been drinking alcohol and was a willing participant who initiated much of the contact during the encounters. A few other students testified on her behalf, hugging her in the courtroom and telling the judge that she was a good teacher, a supportive advocate, who kept appropriate boundaries.

But some observers believe that she got off far too lightly. Parents of two of the “victims” made tearful statements in court. A father complained about his son's “depression and lost motivation,” saying that “he almost didn’t go to college.” He implored the judge to impose a harsh sentence to “send a message that the teacher’s acts are not acceptable and there are serious consequences.”

Another parent said her son trusted his teacher during an extremely low period when his father had cancer and related health problems. "These young men may appear as if they are tough guys, but in reality, they are truly hurting," said mom. "She took advantage of their vulnerability. She crossed the line and it is unacceptable."

Oh, please!

Well, of course what happened here is wrong, unacceptable, and crossing the line – that goes without saying. Teachers shouldn’t have sex with their students; it’s against the law; it’s unethical; it’s disgusting. But 16 counts of felony sexual battery?

If there were an insanity in this case, that is it. Maybe it’s against the law, and maybe it should be; maybe she shouldn’t be a teacher; but only by the delusional psychosis of the legislature does this constitute a serious felony crime.  If a teacher weren’t involved, it wouldn’t even be against the law. The legal system has overreacted here to the point of absurdity.  

This sort of thing occurs only occasionally in America (about once in a blue moon); teachers and students gone wild. When it does happen the headlines are always global. The prudes and the pundits go apoplectic. There’s a big to-do about nothing. Muggers and armed robbers often get less time in prison than this hapless teacher.

What we have in this case is six normal adult human beings, albeit, five of them young adults; one horny woman afflicted with acute alcohol induced nymphomania, and five strapping young men all suffering from raging male testosterone syndrome, giving in to their wholly natural desires for sex.

Does anyone really believe that these guys – these big rugged football team game bangers – were sexually assaulted and battered here? Does anyone really believe that these young men didn’t heartily consent to the activity; didn’t initiate most of it themselves; didn’t thoroughly enjoy every second of it?

If anyone were vulnerable here it was the teacher. Does anyone really believe that she’s a sexual predator? Who is the victim here; the boys or their teacher? Why aren’t these young men guilty of a crime?

If any of these boys were psychologically damaged because of what happened, it surely did not arise out of the sex parties, but more precisely from the reaction to the titillating events by society. Had the parties not been discovered and laid bare, these lucky boys would carry fond memories of them throughout their lives.

I seriously doubt that the kinky sex, for example, caused any depression, emotional trauma or loss of motivation in these lads. Far from it; they loved it; it’s the publicity over it, the court trial, the glaring limelight, the social embarrassment, and the intense media feeding frenzy that causes psychological pain.

So, once again, we have a good productive member of society, a teacher who made a stupid mistake which has, as a practical matter, hurt no one, but a mistake for which she will have to pay dearly for the rest of her life. Years of her life will be wasted in prison. No doubt she will never teach again. She’ll surely have to register as a sex offender and suffer all the indignities and iniquity that entails. She’ll be branded as a felon and a convict to the end of her days.

Prison is not a proper remedy for cases like this one. Prison will serve no valid societal purpose here. This woman is not a danger to the community. There are no victims except perhaps to the integrity of the teaching profession. She should have been fired and her license suspended or revoked.

This case is just one more ridiculous example of sex crime psychosis in America.

Cash No Good in Louisiana

Gestapo forces in the State of Louisiana (the Governor and State Legislature, that is) have banned cash transactions with "secondhand dealers,” defined as anyone, other than a non-profit entity, who buys, sells, trades in or otherwise acquires or disposes of junk or used or secondhand property more frequently than once per month from any other person, other than a non-profit entity.

Cash is no longer king in Louisiana. The law requires that payment must be made in the form of a check, electronic transfer, or money order issued to the seller.

So cash – good old United States legal tender for all debts public and private – is not legal in Louisiana to buy used pots and pans at a neighborhood flea market. Little kids trading marbles in their elementary school yard during recess in Louisiana are violating the law if they use pennies to complete the transactions.

And that’s not all. Every transaction requires a list of personal information from both parties be turned over to the local policing authorities on a daily basis; name, address, detailed description of the item(s) involved in the sale, driver's license number and the license plate number of the vehicle in which the goods were delivered, for example.

If the kid selling marbles refuses to produce to the other kid buyer (“secondhand dealer”) any of the required forms of identification and other information, that kid is prohibited from completing the transaction. If he completes it with cash, he’s a criminal under the law.

All individuals and businesses involved in the selling and buying used goods are forced to report their routine business activity to the police, no matter what. In short, the authorities are forcing innocent buyers and sellers to become police informants whether they want to or not.

The authorities apparently want to crack down on criminal activities in stolen goods, but any fool knows that the criminals will go right on transacting their business in cash right under the noses of the authorities while the innocent are burdened into compliance with this ridiculous law at the cost of their individual privacy, civil liberty and freedom..

But guess who is exempt from this ham handed, and probably unconstitutional law? Pawnshops! That’s right, pawnshops can still deal in cash in Louisiana while a housewife is deemed a common criminal if she buys some used baby clothes at a neighborhood garage sale with cash.

Who says the heartland of America isn’t slowly turning into a police state?