A Very, Very Important Church-State Separation Case

Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation is about to be heard before SCOTUS.

"What this case is really about is the basic question [of] whether citizens have the right to sue to keep the government from violating the First Amendment," said Richard Katskee, assistant legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

His organization, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, People for the American Way and other groups supportive of church-state separation have filed a joint friend-of-the-court brief in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation's position.

The case will mark the first time the justices deal with President Bush's faith-based initiatives -- his attempt to expand the government's ability to fund social services through churches and other religious charities.

However, Hein does not deal directly with whether the program violates the First Amendment's ban on government establishment of religion, as some of its critics contend. Rather, the court will consider a narrower issue -- whether a group of taxpayers has "standing," or the right to sue, over the use of general executive-branch funds to promote the faith-based plan.

ABPNews

Here's the plaintiff's summary (including all the legal docs at the bottom of the page), a blog post with lots of helpful links, and here's some great legal analysis of the case's importance.

If citizens are not allowed to use their status as taxpaying citizens in order to procure standing to challenge the federal government's use of funds to establish religion, in violation of the 1st Amendment, then we're all in for a world of hurting. All of us, on every side of every fence. I can only hope that the historically great (but hardly perfect) Supreme Court will protect our country's freedom of religion and uphold the Constitution. Keep your fingers crossed...this one really matters.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state, Politics

Destroying (Yet Another) Creationist Myth, Plus Their Claims to Intellectual Honesty

**Update (11/25/07): See here for updated links for all the papers below**

Said myth being, in a very recent case, that evolution cannot "generate new information", or something of the sort involving information theory. This recently occurred (again) in my own experience when Tom Short returned to UF a week ago, and, as all creationists do, repeated this canard but was completely unable to provide for me even a suitable or technically correct definition of information.

Three random papers, representing awesome research and hundreds of citations to follow (which creationists never will, because they don't want to see the evidence they lie about not existing), shatter this myth into a million pieces:

• Understanding the recent evolution of the human genome: insights from human-chimpanzee genome comparisons, Human Mutation, 28(2):99-130, Oct 2006, Download PDF
• The origin of new genes: Glimpses from the young and old, Nature Reviews Genetics, 4(11): 865-875 Nov 2003, Download PDF
• Evolution of biological complexity, PNAS, 97(9):4463-4468, April 2000, Download PDF
  

Each of these papers has exhaustive and detailed answers to the very legitimate questions about how genetic features (and thus phenotypes) are changed such as is required by common descent. And, as usual, there are hundreds more where these came from. It's the typical blatant intellectual bankruptcy on the part of creationists to mindlessly repeat these myths without ever doing their homework. Why? Because religion teaches you to believe what people behind pulpits tell you, and not think for yourself, or go look it up and do serious study. Authority and dogma, that's what they breed. Without them, there is no religion.

And D. James Kennedy and a million other scientifically-ignorant peddlers of superstition and myth are ever willing to continue to spread these creationist canards and falsehoods that keep them in business. They have an obvious interest at stake...don't they? And their sheep (self-admittedly named) continue to baaaaaa them right back.

The funniest thing is when you ask the same detailed questions of a creationist, be they an ID-creationist or a YEC-creationist (not that those are mutually exclusive) -- "What are the mechanisms by which things are designed?" "What features, specifically, are designed and are not designed in some particular organism X?" "What chronology can you assign to the design events in said organism X?"

We offer them peer-reviewed literature with amazing empirical examples to back up our claims. What do we get in return? Blank stares and nose-picking and hand-waving. Argumentum ad ignorantium is all they have, and all they ever will.

The next time a creationist repeats a boldfaced lie to the effect that "evolution can't produce new features/information/etc.," ask them for their email, and send them the link to this blog post. Then, if they choose to lie again, they can't claim innocent ignorance of the facts. They will choose to do just that, though, and justify it in their own minds by saying that God wants them to lie because the alternative is evil...even though they now know they cannot honestly claim it isn't true.

It will stop the entire show when you ask a creationist to give you a bit, just a teeny little bit, of a definition of information that doesn't beg the question (involving intentionality). They won't be able to do it, certainly not to relate compressibility and randomness correctly to information theory. And when they try, they'll blather on mindlessly about the genetic code, and you can refer them to this article:

• The origin of the genetic code: theories and their relationships, a review, Biosystems, 80:175-184, Nov 2004 Download PDF

Not that they'll read that, either. But the point is, there are answers. They choose to ignore them, and so belie any pretense to honesty or intellectual integrity they claim. End of story.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism

More on Using "The N-Word"

A while back, I spent some time analyzing this issue, and again when CNN did a special on it. Now, Stillman College in AL is hosting an "'N'Surrection Conference" examining the use of the n-word in America. My bottom line: the word needs to go, should've gone thirty years ago, and it is up to the black community to abolish it from within for it to ever go extinct without.
________________
Technorati tags: Politics

A Must-read Letter in the Dixie County Advocate

A friend of mine from Dixie County is to thank for re-typing the entire text of an long open letter that appeared in the LTE section of the Dixie County Advocate this week (2A). It is beautifully articulate and wonderfully wise. It leaves the "logic" of the decision to place the monument there in a heap of smoking ruin. I'm also glad the paper allowed it to be printed.

And...so much for the, "No one from here disagrees with it!" defense:

"An Open Letter to the Citizens of Dixie County, My Birthplace"

Let us gut the old saw we all know, and stand it on its head. Let me ask not what we can do for my country, but what our county, viz., Dixie County, can do for us. Apparently this is made possible by a new twist of county commission reasoning. For I, born in Cross City and native resident there for the first 17 years of my life, have already served my country, in Tokyo and Yokohama Harbor, persuasively 9,000 miles from home.

To return to what? To return to a County Commission, a half-century later only to witness the wholesale abandonment of the U.S. Constitution, and a supposed flouting of its core principles? Do not the commission members grasp the intent of the 1^st Amendment to THE BILL OF RIGHTS of the Constitution, effecting the clear separation of church and state, or do the governing fathers of today's rural hamlet hugging the Nature Coast of Florida devise itself somehow separate and apart, and not an entity to otherwise obey our sacred foundations and way of life?

Before the county fathers would ever submit to the whim of a local major contributor, to have a semblance of the Ten Commandments monument placed literally at the courthouse steps, at its seat of power, did the commission even bother to entertain the question of its overall appropriateness, and to whether such placement would meet legal muster? Did its members plumb the learned opinions of the township's elder statesmen, or its retired education? I think not.

Back in the late Forties, my uncle served as Principal of Dixie County High School, pinchhitting as an instructor of civics, government, English and algebra. It was Uncle Marshall Davies who had as pupils the grandfathers of the kids who grew up to be today's crop of sitting commissioners. Uncle Marshall's prime intent was to see that all the children in his realm of influence would grow and learn to their educational pace, and above all become economically self-sufficient. Times and conditions were so utterly raw and hard back in those days, but he was thorough and self-motivated to exact the measure of each and every student, for that is the sole function and ambition of an educator. But now to what avail, if these children of my uncle's pupils evolved to commit today's malfeasance in elected office? Yes, malfeasance!

Another blunder and misstep of the commission is to have adopted the faulty logic of its own legal guide, the attorney advising the panel. The attorney abandoned logic, emotionally blending with the religious fervor of the crowd to tell Fox TV network that Dixie is Dixie, and the balance of the nation could go chase itself. I suspect that when this egregious abuse of judgment is said and done, that lawyer will find himself hauled before The Florida Bar and made to show cause why he should be allowed to keep his license to practice law. This stems from the fact that there is clear precedent barring such a monument in its particular location, viz., the Establishment Clause. Never in my day would I have dreamed of so callous a scenario. And here I was a half-century ago, during the military years, trying to save the country, not bury the country, as is being done in such cavalier fashion today.

This scenario, if played out, and somehow not interrupted, would see a petition filed, addressed in Federal court, and the first sitting magistrate hearing the case handing down an order mandating the effective removal of The Rock from the courthouse steps property. Should the members of the Commission self-righteously disobey, another order would be entered dispatching the United States Marshals Service, and attendant force, as deemed necessary. The commissioners would be placed in large black vans and transported to Jacksonville for detention. Should local police officials dare to intervene, they too would be stripped and transported to lockup and the lot of then cited for contempt. Google's lenses would peer from the heavens, capturing the moment, that all here is not fun and games.

This, my friends, is what you do not know, and what you should begin knowing. One simply does not set out to find himself on the muzzle end of a federal court order. And for good reason, otherwise the entire nation would splinter into chaos. A very similar situation, as relates to this case, played out just a while ago, which saw the chief justice of a state supreme court driven from office on a federal contempt citation, and finally disbarred from the practice of law itself. My Word, does not Cross City begin to get the drift of walking this thin line?

As I see it, there does exist a legal out, a plausible exit, and that too is gracious in the process. The prime mover, the major sponsor of the Big Rock project who came forward to make the
endeavor financially possible, could adopt a change of heart, and entreat the commission to reverse its efforts and remove the monolith. Mister Joe could then step in, lasso his Rock, and drag it to the far northwest quadrant of his cow pasture, for the cows to dwell upon while contemplating the Absolute Idea existing in time and space.

Within a month or two the good townsfolk would begin to savor how strangely sweeter the milk. Yes, this is the upside, and just look at the enormous amount of money the county saved in not
having to fight this legal monster, a case unwinnable on its face, a case to forever stain the legitimacy of the county, a case in effect rendered moot before it was to get off the ground. Because Mister Joe finally saw the courage to do the right thing and tacitly agree to withdraw the monument, before the authorities really noticed. But the county must go about its duty and act quickly now, if it wants to preserve its legacy.

My intent here is not to be harsh, but to be forthright.

After all, I was born 70 years ago in Cross City, less than a quarter-mile from the old courthouse's eastern steps. I and friends played as kids on and around those steps in the far distant yesteryear. I admire my little hometown, and ache for its relative simplicity and laid-back demeanor. But the way the county commission of today measures simplicity, against being downright simple, might find the two mutually exclusive. Therein lies this problem.

Page Davies
DCHS Class of 1954
Clearwater, FL

It makes me cry tears of joy. :-)

I found it interesting that in the paper's mention of the last Commission meeting, not one peep about the 10C case appeared. I've written Candace Corbin about getting a copy of the last few meetings' transcripts.

The attorney he mentioned was Joe Lander, and you can see Joe's emotive "defense" of the county's actions here on YouTube. My detailed analysis of the legal issues here, and everything I've written on this situation, including extensive local media coverage, here.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state, Politics

Time is More Optimistic Than I

Time had a good one on the RR last Friday, although it repeated much from Newsweek. I hope he's right...

The Religious Right's Era Is Over
by Jim Wallis, Fri 2/16/2007

As I have traveled around the country, one line in my speeches always draws cheers: "The monologue of the Religious Right is over, and a new dialogue has now begun." We have now entered the post-Religious Right era. Though religion has had a negative image in the last few decades, the years ahead may be shaped by a dynamic and more progressive faith that will make needed social change more possible.

In the churches, a combination of deeper compassion and better theology has moved many pastors and congregations away from the partisan politics of the Religious Right. In politics, we are beginning to see a leveling of the playing field between the two parties on religion and "moral values," and the media are finally beginning to cover the many and diverse voices of faith. These are all big changes in American life, and the rest of the world is taking notice.

Evangelicals — especially the new generation of pastors and young people — are deserting the Religious Right in droves. The evangelical social agenda is now much broader and deeper, engaging issues like poverty and economic justice, global warming, HIV/AIDS, sex trafficking, genocide in Darfur and the ethics of the war in Iraq. Catholics are returning to their social teaching; mainline Protestants are asserting their faith more aggressively; a new generation of young black and Latino pastors are putting the focus on social justice; a Jewish renewal movement and more moderate Islam are also growing; and a whole new denomination has emerged, which might be called the "spiritual but not religious."

Even more amazing, the Left is starting to get it. Progressive politics is remembering its own religious history and recovering the language of faith. Democrats are learning to connect issues with values and are now engaging with the faith community. They are running more candidates who have been emboldened to come out of the closet as believers themselves. Meanwhile, many Republicans have had it with the Religious Right. Both sides are asking how to connect faith and values with politics. People know now that God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and we are all learning that religion should not be in the pocket of any political party; it calls all of us to moral accountability.

Most people I talk to think that politics isn't working in America and believe that the misuse of religion has been part of the problem. Politics is failing to resolve the big moral issues of our time, or even to seriously address them. And religion has too often been used as a wedge to divide people, rather than as a bridge to bring us together on those most critical questions. I believe (and many people I talk with agree) that politics could and should begin to really deal with the many crises we face. Whenever that happens, social movements often begin to emerge, usually focused on key moral issues. The best social movements always have spiritual foundations, because real change comes with the energy, commitment and hope that powerful faith and spirituality can bring.

It's time to remember the spiritual revivals that helped lead to the abolition of slavery in Britain and the United States; the black church's leadership during the American civil rights movement; the deeply Catholic roots of the Solidarity movement in Poland that led the overthrow of communism; the way liberation theology in Latin America helped pave the way for new democracies; how Desmond Tutu and the South African churches served to inspire victory over apartheid; how "People Power" joined with the priests and bishops to bring down down Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos; how the Dalai Lama keeps hope alive for millions of Tibetans; and, today, how the growing Evangelical and Pentecostal churches of the global South are mobilizing to addresse the injustices of globalization.

I believe we are seeing the beginning of movements like that again, right here in America, and that we are poised on the edge of what might become a revival that will bring about big changes in the world. Historically, social reform often requires spiritual revival. And that's what church historians always say about real revival — that it changes things in the society, not just in people's inner lives. I believe that what we are seeing now may be the beginning of a new revival — a revival for justice.

The era of the Religious Right is now past, and it's up to all of us to create a new day.

Jim Wallis is the founder of Sojourners and the author of God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It

Stuff we've all pointed out before: the RR is a political movement that is premised upon "values" as if other people have none; it presupposes authority over compassion, it divides people over issues involving our common humanity, it hinders all moral progress, it is suffering internal divisions and lacks the larger body of mainstream Catholics and many Evangelicals. But, I guess some truths are worth repeating...

So the question isn't about the demise of religion, or the ever-widening bifurcation of rational people from the RR, but the time it will take for this movement to completely snuff out.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state, Politics

SOSDD: More of the Same

"Creation Scientists" are frauds and cons, and this guy is no different. Their tactics may evolve, but their arguments, quote mines, and obfuscations are pretty well-worn...Except that this one will be here at UF on 2/27 to spew distortions and lies to a crowd of university students:

He's so bad he throws out the PRATTs from the get-go:

No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection

Lie. And a bold one.

The "greatest" evidence put forward since Darwin has been able to go no further than the "industrial melanism" of the moths in England.

1) This is a complete distortion of the peppered moths' value as evidence of evolution
2) citing this particular evidence as being the "greatest" for speciation is a strawman, many better ones exist

"Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur".8 This is why neo-Darwinism has had to elevate mutations next to natural selection as the "cause of beneficial changes". However as we shall see, mutations can only be "the cause for harmful changes".

Yet another canard of creationism.

I don't have the stomach to dissect the rest of this dreck, but you can feel free to do so on your own, here's the list where you will find all of his points refuted. It's been done a million times, to a million different people repeating the same silliness.

I don't have much hope for non-skeptics who attend such events, as it basically means they're looking for confirmation of something they already believe, and not education on something they're ignorant of. It's sad that people who come to a university to broaden their horizons would seek to fill their heads with nonsense in order to prevent their religious notions from being challenged.

PS: See more on Harun Yahya here, here and see this and this long article in Science about him.

________________
Technorati tags: Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism

The Homeless in Gainesville

I'm not sure if it's the location of Gainesville, its proximity to I-75, its geographic resources for people who sleep outdoors (apparently, the Rainbow Family loves Ocala National Forest), or the generosity of its citizens, but the number of vagabonds is now a city-mandated issue, with a "10 Year Plan", including shelter construction, to affect homelessness in G'ville. It's been a boilerplate issue in city politics.

I mentioned my own interactions with "Radical Bill", aka William H. Abney, a vagrant 70s-era activist who lingers about the UF campus throughout the day and still engages with campus preachers (he's still radical, I guess) in my review of the campus preachers, parts 1 and 2. Some of them fall into the well-worn "pretend to be a vet/disabled/have my pet with me to evoke sympathy" category to elicit more money, but some don't even ask for it, and I find these people fascinating, if I can say that without sounding condescending. Of course, most generic bums don't qualify, but some transients leave me with the impression that they enjoy life more than I do, and Bill is one of these. He is always smiling and happy, always reading a book or newspaper, always ready to share an anecdote.

There's something about the ones who are mentally healthy and "just choose to live that way" that is strangely appealing to me. Like Thoreau at Walden Pond, they seem more liberated to me than destitute -- like they've transcended the petty stuff we shackle ourselves to and have returned to nature...or something.

And then I remember how much I like a hot shower and a clean bed and fine wine and food. I'm just a weenie.

Maybe I just need to do a few weeks in the wilderness every once in a while to put that wild impulse in perspective.

I bring this up because I read about some overlap with this concern (homeless) in Jacksonville, where an Ass. Prof. was recently charged with violating a city ordinance for feeding the homeless without a permit. The charges were later dropped, but I found it both sad and exasperating that such a law would exist in the first place. He is now challenging the constitutionality of the law on the grounds of religious expression. (HT: Religion Clause)
________________
Technorati tags: Politics

"...Tonight, We Dine in Hell!"

I am prepared.
Are you?

I can honestly say that from the first time I saw the trailer, I knew this was going to be an epic. And so far, I've not read the first negative review, and I have been following them. My expectations are through the roof, and March 9th can't come soon enough.

Based (loosely) on the Battle of Thermopylae, a classic historical tale of bravery and treachery, directed by a violence and gore expert and full of vivid graphical detail by a renowned artistic (comics) legend, I know that 300 is going to be up there with LOTR for me on a short list of modern cinematic gemstones. It will be full of glory. It will be very gory. It will be amazing.

see also: rotten tomatoes, movieweb, expanded YouTube trailer
________________
Technorati tags: Movies, Entertainment

Quote of the Day Being

From Sandalstraps:

To declare something immoral is not to claim that it should be regulated by the government. For instance, despite my pro-choice stance concerning abortion, I think that most actual abortions are morally impermissible. That said, they should remain legal for nuanced reasons that have been hashed out elsewhere. As such, my coming out against this museum, my declaring it to be an outrageous idea that should never have been able to raise the funds that it has raised to celebrate a ridiculous belief that flies in the face of good history, good science, good theology, and especially good exegesis, is not intolerant. My belief in the freedom of speech dictates that these people can say whatever they want. My belief in the liberty of conscience tells me that they are free to believe whatever they want. But my belief in both those principles also dictates that I have the freedom to call a bad idea exactly what it is, a bad idea that should not happen even as it should not be forcefully stopped.

Tolerance is not some liberal Kool Aid that we all mindlessly drink to suppress disagreement. Tolerance is an acknowledgement that there are real disagreements in the world, and that we should discuss those disagreements, and that those disagreements should be mediated peacefully rather than with force. And I am free to be tolerant insofar as I don't infringe on the freedom of others to hold beliefs and to express those beliefs, which not only not holding those beliefs myself, but also expressing my well grounded belief that certain beliefs - while people are free to hold them - are not only wrong, but even ridiculous.

I'm sorry if this disappoints you, but it is not intolerance.

Amen and amen.
________________
Technorati tags: Politics, Philosophy,Creationism

"Author of a Controversial Paper on the Medical Benefits of Prayer Is Accused of Plagiarizing"

And I'm not surprised in the least. How else could you find evidence for a phenomenon that doesn't exist (the healing power of prayer), except to fabricate it?

Author of a Controversial Paper on the Medical Benefits of Prayer Is Accused of Plagiarizing

By ELYSE ASHBURN

A controversial study that claimed to demonstrate the efficacy of prayer in medicine has suffered yet another blow to its credibility, as one of its authors now stands accused of plagiarism in another published paper.

Doctors were flummoxed in 2001, when Columbia University researchers published a study in The Journal of Reproductive Medicine that found that strangers' prayers could double the chances that a woman would get pregnant using in-vitro fertilization. In the years that followed, however, the lead author removed his name from the paper, saying that he had not contributed to the study, and a second author went to jail on unrelated fraud charges.

Meanwhile, many scientists and doctors have written to the journal criticizing the study, and at least one doctor has published papers debunking its findings.

Now the third author of the controversial paper, Kwang Y. Cha, has been accused of plagiarizing a paper published in the journal Fertility and Sterility in December 2005. Alan DeCherney, editor of Fertility and Sterility and director of the reproductive biology and medicine branch at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said on Monday that it was clear to him that Dr. Cha, who has since left Columbia, plagiarized the work of a South Korean doctoral student for a paper he published on detecting women who are at risk of premature menopause.

Jeong Hwan Kim, then a student at Korea University, in Seoul, had published the same paper in a South Korean journal in January 2004, according to Sunday's Los Angeles Times. Mr. Kim brought the matter to the attention of Fertility and Sterility in the spring of 2006, Dr. DeCherney said. In an interview on Monday, he said he had spent the intervening time confirming the accusations.

Dr. DeCherney said he would recommend that the journal's oversight committee publish a statement saying that the paper was plagiarized and bar Dr. Cha, who appeared as the lead author on the paper, and the five other listed authors from publishing in the journal for three years. The publication committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, which oversees the journal, is expected to decide on the issue in April.

Dr. Cha, a businessman whose company owns fertility clinics in Los Angeles and Seoul, could not be reached for comment on Monday. He also did not return calls from the Los Angeles Times, according to that newspaper's report.

Dr. DeCherney said that he had compiled a list of other papers Dr. Cha has published in Fertility and Sterility, and that he would review the list if other complaints arose. As for the validity of the 2001 paper on the efficacy of prayer, Dr. DeCherney said his journal had declined to publish the findings in the first place.

"It's baloney," he said. "That's not in question."

Editors at The Journal of Reproductive Medicine, which is affiliated with several organizations including the Martin L. Stone Obstetrical and Gynecological Society of the New York Medical College, did not return calls for comment on Monday. Lawrence D. Devoe, the journal's editor in chief, said in 2004 that the journal was further scrutinizing the paper (The Chronicle, December 2, 2004).

But Bruce L. Flamm, a researcher who has worked for years to debunk the 2001 paper, said the plagiarism accusations against Dr. Cha should leave the Journal of Reproductive Medicine with no choice but to retract it.

"I'm convinced that paper is fraudulent," said Dr. Flamm, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California at Irvine. "And over the years, everything that has happened has confirmed that opinion, not moved me away from it."

There simply is no magical correlation between faith and health. Sorry, folks, but facts are facts.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion,