Quote of the Day: Truth Vs. Prior Conlusions

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life. --Tolstoy

Texas GOP Argues Atheist Shouldn't Be Elected

This is appalling and unconstitutional. ("[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.")

Funny how Christians (who have the Presidency, the overwhelming majority of the House and Senate, and practically all Judgeships) claim to be persecuted against.

Candidate for the Sixth Court of Appeals, Ben Franks, is reported to be a professed atheist and apparently believes the Bible is a "collection of myths."

...

All elected or appointed officials in Texas must take the oath prescribed by Art. XVI, Section 1(a) of the Texas Constitution:

"I, _____ , do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of _____ of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God." [Emphasis original.]

Should Franks be elected in November, one would have to conclude that he will hold true to his out of touch "atheist" belief system and ignore the laws and Constitution of Texas. [Emphasis mine.]

From the Republican Party of Texas's website, via Andrew Sullivan.

When are the non-crazy Republicans going to wake up and take back their Party?

It's worth noting that Franks disputes the claim that he has professed to be an atheist, although it shouldn't be relevant.

"Do I Tell My Wife I've Become an Atheist?"

I love my wife. She is deeply religious. I have become an atheist. Do I tell her? What now?

Unfortunately, a lot of my readers may find this discussion useful. I'm so glad I left Orthodoxy without getting married. Telling my parents was hard enough.

The Progression of Religious Honesty

Which stage are you in?

1) God created the universe approximately 6,000 years ago, which is what science would tell us if it weren't biased.

2) God created the universe approximately 6,000 years ago but made it look older than it is.

3) God created the universe billions of years ago, exactly as the Bible describes it if "yom" means "era" rather than "day."

4) God created the universe billions of years ago, but man was a special creation approximately 6,000 years ago and the rest of the Torah is still true.

5) God created the universe billions of years ago and guided evolution to make man, but the rest of the Torah is still true.

6) God kicked off the universe billions of years ago, fine-tuning it ahead of time to ensure man would evolve and the rest of the Torah is still true.

7) Adam and Eve and the tower of Babel are probably mythological, but the rest of the Torah is still true.

8) Also, the Flood story is exaggerated, but the rest of the Torah is still true.

9) Also, the Patriarchs and Matriarchs may be mythological, but the rest of the Torah is still true.

10) Moses may have written the Torah himself with divine inspiration rather than taking down God's dictation, but the Torah is still divine.

11) Moses and the Exodus may be mythological, and the Torah may have been written by several men across several centuries, but the Torah is still unique and divinely inspired.

12) The Torah may be no more than a flawed product of its era, but Judaism is mankind's best method of reaching towards the Divine.

13) God hasn't had any involvement with humanity since the dawn of time, but He was still the Prime Mover who fine-tuned the universe.

14) There was a Prime Mover, which we can't say anything about, but we'll call it "God" to make ourselves feel better.

15) Nature is "God."

16) "God" is love.

17) We don't know if there is a God. Could go either way.

18) It sure doesn't seem like there is a God.

Legislating Violations of the Constitution

With little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679 - provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.

A federal statute, 42 United States Code section 1988, provides that attorneys are entitled to recover compensation for their fees if they successfully represent a plaintiff asserting a violation of his or her constitutional or civil rights. For example, a lawyer who successfully sues on behalf of a victim of racial discrimination or police abuse is entitled to recover attorney's fees from the defendant who acted wrongfully. Any plaintiff who successfully sues to remedy a violation of the Constitution or a federal civil rights statute is entitled to have his or her attorney's fees paid.

Congress adopted this statute for a simple reason: to encourage attorneys to bring cases on behalf of those whose rights have been violated. Congress was concerned that such individuals often cannot afford an attorney and vindicating constitutional rights rarely generates enough in damages to pay a lawyer on a contingency fee basis.

Without this statute, there is no way to compensate attorneys who successfully sue for injunctions to stop unconstitutional government behavior. Congress rightly recognized that attorneys who bring such actions are serving society's interests by stopping the government from violating the Constitution. Indeed, the potential for such suits deters government wrong-doing and increases the likelihood that the Constitution will be followed.

...

[C]onservatives in the House of Representatives have now passed an insidious bill to try and limit enforcement of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, by denying attorneys fees to lawyers who successfully challenge government actions as violating this key constitutional provision. For instance, a lawyer who successfully challenged unconstitutional prayers in schools or unconstitutional symbols on religious property or impermissible aid to religious groups would -- under the bill -- not be entitled to recover attorneys' fees. The bill, if enacted, would treat suits to enforce the Establishment Clause different from litigation to enforce all of the other provisions of the Constitution and federal civil rights statutes.

Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion. The religious right, which has been trying for years to use government to advance their religious views, wants to reduce the likelihood that their efforts will be declared unconstitutional. Since they cannot change the law of the Establishment Clause by statute, they have turned their attention to trying to prevent its enforcement by eliminating the possibility for recovery of attorneys' fees.

Those who successfully prove the government has violated their constitutional rights would, under the bill, be required to pay their own legal fees. Few people can afford to do so. Without the possibility of attorneys' fees, individuals who suffer unconstitutional religious persecution often will be unable to sue. The bill applies even to cases involving illegal religious coercion of public school children or blatant discrimination against particular religions.

The passage of this bill by the House is a disturbing achievement by those who seek to undermine our nation's commitment to fundamental freedoms laid out in the Constitution. Should it come up for a vote, it is imperative that the Senate reject this nefarious proposal. The religious right is looking for a way to get away with violating the Establishment Clause and is now one step closer to this goal. The Establishment Clause is no less important than any other part of the Bill of Rights and suits to enforce it should be treated no differently than any other litigation to enforce civil liberties and civil rights.

Erwin Chemerinsky is the Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science, at Duke University

Legislating Violations of the Constitution, via Religious Freaks

"The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion."

97% of Republicans supported it and 87% of Democrats opposed.