<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/">
<title>A Stitch in Haste</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/</link>
<description>A collection of real-world libertarian, individualist and laissez-faire rants on policy, culture and other current events by an average, everyday lawyer &amp; investment banker and part-time pop scholar.</description>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:date>2008-06-28T11:06+00:00</dc:date>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213697213.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213198170.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1212452242.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1210732564.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1210244029.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1208481445.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207999832.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207099612.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1204758421.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1204154807.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1201744355.shtml" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213697213.shtml">
<title>God Has a Sense of Humor</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213697213.shtml</link>
<description>Why else would He tease some of His biggest fans by putting a huge heap of anti-creationist evidence right in their backyard?...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-17T10:06+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Why else would He tease some of His biggest fans by putting a huge heap of anti-creationist evidence <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_sc/sci_dinosaur_find">right in their backyard</a>?<blockquote>A newly discovered batch of well-preserved dinosaur bones, petrified trees and even freshwater clams in southeastern Utah could provide new clues about life in the region some 150 million years ago.<br />
<br />
The Bureau of Land Management announced the find Monday, calling the quarry near Hanksville "a major dinosaur fossil discovery."<br />
...<br />
The area has long been known to locals and BLM officials as a dinosaur haven. But no one knew of the site's magnitude until excavation began.</blockquote>Actually, Mormons as a group have been remarkably reluctant to drink the Kreationist Kool-Aid. It might have to do with the fact that in 1909 one of the religion's elders was a geologist who <a href="http://www.mormonwiki.com/Creationism_in_Mormonism">smacked down</a> the church's leader when he tried to issue an anti-evolution edict.<br />
<br />
Or maybe it's just hard to deny evolution when you live in a state where every time you dig a hole in the ground a 150 million year old fossil turns up.<br />
<br />
Too bad there's no dinosaur quarry underneath the <a href="http://www.sbclife.net/Articles/1999/10/sla10.asp">Southern Baptist Convention</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213198170.shtml">
<title>Linkfest: "Children, Students and the First Amendment"</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213198170.shtml</link>
<description>Quick dispatches from here and there &amp;mdash;...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-11T15:06+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Quick dispatches from here and there &mdash; <br />
<br />
<b>ITEM:</b> The federal government <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_bi_ge/internet_blocking">continues</a> its futile, warm-fuzzy-feeling efforts to censor the Internet in the name of "protecting children." The Child Online Protection Act, enjoined by the Supreme Court in <i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-218">Ashcroft v. ACLU</a></i>, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (a/k/a "<i>Reno II</i>" &mdash; and yes that's "Reno" as in "Janet" from way back in 1998) is again before the Third Circuit, where the Justice Department must convince the court that:<ul><li>the availability to parents of built-in content filters</li><br />
<li>the fact that U.S. law cannot reach online porn posted overseas anyway</li><br />
<li>the fact that COPA "does not cover chat rooms, You Tube and other interactive sites that emerged in the last decade"</li></ul>are all somehow irrelevant and that age verification ("a belt and suspenders approach" according to the DOJ lawyer arguing the case) is the "least intrusive way" to achieve the law's stated goals. Expect the court to yet again find the law unconstitutional. Flagship post <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1161631926.shtml">here</a>.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<b>ITEM:</b> Here's <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5031654&page=1">an incident</a> where the censors claim not to be protecting the children but rather the parents &mdash; <blockquote>In the short walk across stage, Joseph Bryan Shore, 18, elicited more than boos when he allegedly cursed out his family and flipped the bird to the crowd, according to authorities. Immediately after the [high school graduation] ceremony, two police officers took him into custody and charged him with disorderly conduct. <br />
...<br />
The principal of Arab City High School, Patrick Crowder, said he regretted the incident but that he had no choice other than to have Shore arrested.</blockquote><b>MY TAKE:</b> The principal "had no choice"? Over a few moments of some profanities and the finger &mdash; both of which are unambiguously protected free speech, even in "dignified" (the principal's term) settings such as, e.g., <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0015_ZS.html">a courthouse</a>? Without more, this sounds not only like a improper arrest but also a civil rights violation that would survive a qualified immunity challenge. (Related late entry <a href="http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/WCNC--061008--MMH--GraduationArrests.1a4ef236.html">here</a> &mdash; it is graduation season, after all.)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<b>ITEM:</b> Let's switch from "commencement and freedom of speech" to "<a href="http://www.nj.com/newark/index.ssf/2008/06/newark_schools_settle_religiou.html">commencement and freedom of religion</a>" &mdash; <blockquote>Newark Public Schools has settled a lawsuit filed by a former student who claimed he couldn't attend his graduation from West Side High School because it was held in the sanctuary of a local Baptist Church. <br />
<br />
Bilal Shareef, a Muslim student, said his religious faith prohibited him from entering a building with religious icons, such as pictures of God or images of the cross. He skipped the ceremony held at New Hope Baptist Church in June 2006.<br />
...<br />
The district also agreed not to sponsor or promote religious events, not to hold student events in places of worship and not to hold student events in other religious buildings unless religious images are covered.</blockquote><b>MY TAKE:</b> It is beyond absurd to suggest that a public school district as large as Newark's cannot find suitable secular locations to hold high school graduations and therefore simply "must" have them in churches. If all else fails, then have them at the schools themselves &mdash; that's where mine was held. I don't buy the "no other suitable site" excuse for <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1186075634.shtml">using churches as polling places</a>, and I don't buy it here. (Via <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/06/newark-schools-settle-case-agreeing-not.html">Religion Clause</a>.)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<b>ITEM:</b> And will students be reading about such stories in <a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20152">the school newspaper</a>?<blockquote>A high school newspaper in Northern California has been disbanded after it published a front-page photo of a student burning an American flag, triggering criticism that the administration was stifling free expression.<br />
...<br />
The Redding controversy is the latest example in recent years of high school and college administrators in California attempting to censure [sic] student-run newspapers or punish those who oversee them.</blockquote><b>MY TAKE:</b> I always <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1130876911.shtml">tread lightly</a> on this topic, since I am not convinced that there is a "right to a (taxpayer-funded) school newspaper." And no student was disciplined or penalized for exercising her free speech rights (cf., the <i>Doninger</i> case I recently updated <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1212231812.shtml">here</a>). But the fact that the topic that resulted in the newspaper's termination &mdash; flag burning &mdash; is itself <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=491&invol=397">protected expression</a> and generates so much <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/chain_1119537565.shtml">faux indignation</a> by activist legislators and other anti-rights malcontents certainly gets my libertarian dander up.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1212452242.shtml">
<title>"Comment Left Elsewhere" of the Day</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1212452242.shtml</link>
<description>I really have no desire to be a Bible scholar, so I wish theocrats would stop making me have to look this stuff up:...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-03T10:06+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I really have no desire to be a Bible scholar, so I wish theocrats would stop making me have to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052903262.html">look this stuff up</a>:<blockquote>The Jewish tradition in which Jesus lived and taught demanded that just rulers make a minimal provision for the poor, including no-interest loans and the distribution of agricultural commodities. (Look it up: Exodus 22:25-27 and Deuteronomy 24:19-21.) The apostle Paul held a high view of government's role in promoting justice and urged the willing payment of taxes &mdash; a biblical demand more severe, for some of us, than all those sexual prohibitions.</blockquote>As I noted in a few comments on this, most recently <a href="http://perfectsubstitute.blogspot.com/2008/06/jumping-libertarian-jesus.html">here</a>:<blockquote>At least some, if not most, translations of <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2022:25;&version=31;9;48;15;">Exodus 22:25</a> say "excessive interest" or "usury" and not just "interest."<br />
<br />
The passage could also easily be interpreted as a call for discrimination: Do not charge <b><i>one of my people</i></b> (i.e., another Hebrew) excessive interest. Open season on exploiting goyim, however. (See also <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2023:20;&version=31;9;48;15;">Deuteronomy 23:20</a>.)<br />
<br />
And the passage says nothing about government-mandated law &mdash; just being a good neighbor (and, of course, avoiding God's wrath).</blockquote>Wrath which, as well all know, is limitless &mdash; at least in the Old Testament.<br />
<br />
It's quite simple really: The Bible is large enough, covers a sufficiently long time frame and has so many different (earthly) authors that anyone, from a Randian to a Leninist, from a Catholic to a Mormon to an atheist, can find a stray verse or two to support their secular viewpoint and agenda. See also, "<a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1211825684.shtml">whales</a>."<br />
<br />
If you try to claim Moses or Jesus (or, for that matter, God) as one of your loyal constituents, then you'll have to do better than one lone backwater verse. Just ask <a href="http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/">the shrimp</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1210732564.shtml">
<title>Theocrat Clerics to Stage Frivolous Tax Protest Stunt</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1210732564.shtml</link>
<description>To review (and, with the California gay marriage decision, to preview): The Internal Review Code requires all tax-exempt institutions to abstain from endorsing candidates for office as a condition of...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-05-16T15:05+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[To <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1153875748.shtml">review</a> (and, with the California gay marriage decision, to preview): The Internal Review Code requires all tax-exempt institutions to abstain from endorsing candidates for office as a condition of their preferential status. The restriction does <u>not</u> apply only to churches and does <u>not</u> apply to issue advocacy generally. Only endorsing particular candidates for particular offices is proscribed.<br />
<br />
So how is <a href="http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4505">this</a> anything other than a disingenuous stunt aimed at the misinformed?<blockquote>The Alliance Defense Fund announced a new initiative Friday that will challenge the tactics of groups that use the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate churches and pastors into silence on important issues of the day.<br />
<br />
"Pastors have a right to speak about biblical values from the pulpit without fear of punishment. No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. "The government can't demand that a church give up its right to tax-exempt status simply because the pastor exercises his First Amendment rights in the pulpit. Groups like Americans United intentionally trigger IRS investigations that will silence churches through fear, intimidation, and disinformation."<br />
<br />
The new initiative will equip, protect, and defend pastors who wish to exercise their First Amendment right to openly discuss the positions of political candidates and other moral and social issues from the pulpit. Participating pastors across the country will deliver a sermon along these lines in their own churches Sept. 28.</blockquote>Read that again: "The government can't demand that a church give up its <i><b>right to tax-exempt status</b></i> simply because the pastor exercises his First Amendment rights in the pulpit."<br />
<br />
To use the theocrats' favorite jurisprudential stunt: Where in the Constitution does it say anything about a "right to tax-exempt status"?<br />
<br />
"The First Amendment" is not an answer. The tax-exemption in no way unfavorably* singles out churches relative to other civic institutions. Any assertion to the contrary is an un-Christian lie. Nor does it force any such institution, religious or otherwise, to do anything or refrain from anything. Any assertion to the contrary is an un-Christian lie. Any church or cleric is free, at any time, to say anything they want about any candidate they want. All they have to do is give up their tax-exempt status (which, recall, Congress could simply abolish any time it wished). Any assertion to the contrary is an un-Christian lie.<br />
<br />
The theocrats (whose Bibles seem to have been miraculously redacted of that pesky "<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2022:17-21;&version=31;">render unto Caesar</a>" passage) appear perfectly willing to completely misrepresent the First Amendment, the Internal Revenue Code, the case law**, and the nature of their record of flagrantly illegal (and un-Christian) abuse of the tax-exempt status that allows them to suck so shamelessly at the taxpayer teat.<br />
<br />
Some have suggested that the true purpose of this stunt is to generate a test case in the courts. Yeah right, good luck with that. There is simply nothing to test &mdash; because, again, there is absolutely no theory of constitutional interpretation, by anyone of any political orientation, that would dare suggest that there is a First Amendment "right to a tax break." It is beyond absurd.<br />
<br />
More thoughts at <a href="http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9821">Americans United</a>, <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/05/group-seeking-to-set-up-test-case-on.html">Religion Clause<a/>, <a href="http://blog.au.org/2008/05/09/pulpit-plot-adf-schemes-to-test-taxlaw-limits-on-church-partisanship/">Wall of Separation</a>.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
*Indeed, some elements of the tax code actually treat churches <b><i>more favorably</i></b> than other civic institutions:<blockquote>Although most organizations seeking tax-exempt status are required to apply to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS" or "Service") for an advance determination that they meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3), a church may simply hold itself out as tax exempt and receive the benefits of that status without applying for advance recognition from the IRS.<br />
...<br />
The unique treatment churches receive in the Internal Revenue Code is further reflected in special restrictions on the IRS's ability to investigate the tax status of a church. The Church Audit Procedures Act ("CAPA") sets out the circumstances under which the IRS may initiate an investigation of a church and the procedures it is required to follow in such an investigation.<br />
--<i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=dc&navby=case&no=995097A">Branch Ministries v. Rosotti</a></i>, 40 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 1999)</blockquote>**Especially <i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=461&invol=540">Regan v. Taxation With Representation</a></i>, 461 U.S. 540 (1983):<blockquote>Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity. Congress has simply chosen not to pay for ... lobbying. We again reject the notion that First Amendment rights are somehow not fully realized unless they are subsidized by the State.</blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1210244029.shtml">
<title>"One Negative Person"</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1210244029.shtml</link>
<description>Fascinating case study in theocratic majoritarianism versus secular libertarianism:...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-05-08T10:05+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Fascinating <a href="http://www.journal-news.net/page/content.detail/id/506481.html">case study</a> in theocratic majoritarianism versus secular libertarianism:<blockquote>In a 7-1 majority vote Monday night the Charles Town [West Virginia] City Council decided to institute a moment of silent prayer, thus abolishing the decades-long tradition of reciting the Christian-specific Lord's prayer before the beginning of each meeting.<br />
...<br />
Charles Town Mayor Peggy Smith, who did not vote on the issue, said she was disappointed in the council's decision but understood why it was made. "I understand why they did what they did after listening to legal advice. We cannot place the citizens in jeopardy with a lawsuit. So I do understand their vote but it doesn't make me happy about it," Smith said. <br />
...<br />
[Geraldine] Willingham, who cast the dissenting vote [and] described Charles Town as a "Christian town" at the council's last meeting, was not pleased by the council's decision to do away with the recitation of the Lord's prayer.<br />
<br />
"I think it's a sad day for Charles Town where we cannot start our council meetings off with the Lord's prayer all because of one negative person. That's my comment," Willingham said after Monday's meeting.</blockquote>Some hasty stitches:<br />
<br />
--The "one negative person" was a Jew, not an atheist. Of course, to most hillbilly Christians like Willingham, there's little point in distinguishing between Jews, atheists, agnostics, whatever -- they're all equally un-American and all equally devoid of First Amendment protection (not to mention equally hellbound). Stated differently, there are still people -- elected leaders -- who actually believe, in the Twenty-First Century, that there can be such a thing as a "Christian town" in what was once known as the "land of the free."<br />
<br />
--Based on the media account, it appears that the theocrats couldn't even be bothered to engage in the wink-wink of calling their new invocation a "moment of silence" rather than a "silent prayer." The simple, uncomplicated First Amendment notion that maybe, just maybe, a city council chamber ought not be used as a church is simply incomprehensible to these "dedicated public servants."<br />
<br />
--Speaking of which, note that these theocrats did not stop their flagrantly unconstitutional* practice out of any moral epiphany. They stopped the practice because their lawyers told them to. That's better than nothing, I suppose, but it's hardly praiseworthy.<br />
<br />
(Via <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/05/west-virginia-town-moves-from-lords.html">Religion Clause</a>.)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/02/evangelicals.ap/index.html">Elsewhere</a>:<blockquote>Conservative Christian leaders who believe the word "evangelical" has lost its religious meaning plan to release a starkly self-critical document saying the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars.<br />
<br />
The statement, called "<a href="http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/">An Evangelical Manifesto</a>," condemns Christians on the right and left for using faith to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible, according to a draft of the document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.<br />
...<br />
Richard Land, head of the public policy arm for the Southern Baptist Convention, said through a spokeswoman that he has not seen the document and was not asked to sign it.<br />
<br />
James Dobson, the influential founder of Focus on the Family, a Christian group in Colorado Springs, Colorado, did not sign the document, said Gary Schneeberger, a Dobson spokesman.</blockquote>This is similar to the observation that too many secular Muslims in the U.S. and Europe and not doing enough to "take back Islam" from  extremists who spawn terrorism and violent intolerance in the name of a supposed "Religion of Peace."<br />
<br />
To the extent that these non-political Evangelical leaders make noise against the radical anti-Christians in their midst -- especially Dobson (who, recall, is not a credentialed cleric in any church) -- I can only say, "praise be unto them."<br />
<br />
(Via <a href="http://blog.au.org/2008/05/06/evangelical-angst-moderate-evangelicals-worry-about-the-movements-image/">Wall of Separation</a>.)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
*<i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=463&invol=783">Marsh v. Chambers</a></i>, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (Inapplicability of First Amendment to opening a legislative session with a prayer presupposes that "there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.") Note that I of course consider <i>Marsh</i> wrongly decided in that <u>all</u> legislative prayer sessions ought to be deemed facially unconstitutional, and not just those that are both openly and notoriously sectarian and unambiguously hostile to non-Christians -- as the Lord's Prayer unarguably is.)]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1208481445.shtml">
<title>There is No "I" in "Team" ... or "Jesus"</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1208481445.shtml</link>
<description>I recently wrote the following regarding a Decalogue lawsuit:...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-18T01:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I recently <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1206666216.shtml">wrote</a> the following regarding a Decalogue lawsuit:<blockquote>So the reason stand-alone Decalogues on government property are not necessarily problematic under the First Amendment is because the Ten Commandments are no big deal? There are "many plausible secular reasons" to brandish a Decalogue in public? Decalogues can, indeed should, be viewed merely as the civic organization equivalent of a greeting card?<br />
<br />
If I were a theocrat -- indeed if I were simply a non-theocratic Jew or Christian -- I would not be pleased to see a Decalogue disrespected in this manner.</blockquote>Well, what's good for the Old Testament is good for the New.<blockquote>Plaintiffs [i.e., the ACLU] filed suit after Defendants displayed the icon of Jesus Christ in the foyer of the City Court of Slidell [Louisiana]. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' display served the purpose of advancing, promoting or endorsing Christianity, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.<br />
...<br />
Defendants changed the display prior to and in anticipation of the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court noted that the modified display containing various historical lawgivers under the caption, <i>"To Know Peace, Obey These Laws,"</i> was not in violation of the Constitution; however, the initial arrangement of solely Jesus Christ violated the Establishment Clause.</blockquote>I first noted this disgraceful church-and-state violation back in <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1183568569.shtml">July 2007</a>.<br />
<br />
This latest smackdown of icon-based theocracy is a straightforward application of what I have dubbed the <i>McCreary County - Van Orden Decalogue bifurcation</i>: Be too obnoxiously overt in your rabid theocratic mania (i.e. by having only a Decalogue or only a portrait of Jesus on public property) and you lose your First Amendment lawsuit because you've pulled a <i>McCreary County</i>.*<br />
<br />
But be clever and cunning (i.e., lie) about your intentions, and dilute the Ten Commandments to "just another set of historical laws" -- or, as here, demote Jesus to "just another lawgiver" (along with, e.g., "Moses, Charlemagne and Napoleon") -- and you can joyously traipse your way to the <i>Van Orden</i>** side of the line. No "excessive entanglement," no "religious intent," no problem.<br />
<br />
Of course, by evangelical Christian standards, you've blasphemed by doing so (and violated a few other Commandments along the way). But what's a little ends-means Machiavellianism among friends (or especially among enemies) when it's done in God's name?<br />
<br />
Just as I don't see how it furthers American "<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/img/34/1223/320/new_map.jpg">Jesusland</a>" monotheism to assert that the Ten Commandments is <b><i>not</i></b> above the Mayflower Compact or the Code of Hammurabi, I'm also not quite sure how it furthers evangelical Christianity to equate Jesus with Napoleon. But if it gets their Lord and Savior™ into the county courthouse, then gosh darn it that's what they're going to do. Amen.<br />
<br />
The case is <i>ACLU of Louisiana v. Slidell</i>, No. 07-3574 (E.D. La., April 16, 2008) (<a href="http://howappealing.law.com/DoeVsSlidell.pdf">PDF</a> - 16 pages).<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
Just to be clear, this particular litigation was merely about whether the theocrat defendants should pay the ACLU attorney fees and nominal damages. Both sides stipulated that the theocrats violated the First Amendment with the "Jesus only" display but then fixed their error (i.e., with the "fifteen lawgivers" display) before the substantive lawsuit could be heard. The court sided with the ACLU based mainly on Fifth Circuit precedent.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
*<i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1693">McCreary County v. ACLU</a></i>, 545 U.S. 844 (2005)<br />
**<i><a href="http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1500.ZS.html">Van Orden v. Perry</a></i>, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207999832.shtml">
<title>For Every Good Scalia Sentence...</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207999832.shtml</link>
<description>....there is an equal and opposite bad Scalia sentence:...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-12T11:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[....there is an equal and opposite <a href="http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-04-10-0267.html">bad Scalia sentence</a>:<blockquote>Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers never intended to eliminate religion from government.</blockquote>That remark made, incidentally, in his speech accepting the "<a href="http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2008_spr/scalia.htm">Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law</a>." Go figure.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://blog.au.org/2008/04/11/betraying-jefferson-uva-award-to-scalia-undercuts-third-presidents-principles/">truth</a> shall set you free:<blockquote>I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline or exercises. ... I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, its doctrines, nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them.</blockquote>Lots more <a href="http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/jefferson_quotes.pdf?docID=761">here</a> (PDF - 6 pages).<br />
<br />
Another quick Scalia v. Jefferson:<br />
<br />
<b>Scalia:</b> "With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation's historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists." (<i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1693#dissent1">McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky</a></i>, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting).<br />
<br />
<b>Jefferson:</b> "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
If you need a tiebreaker, <a href="http://bbsnews.net/article.php/200803112057130">Sally Kern</a> is always available:<br />
<br />
<b>Kern:</b> "Matter of fact, studies show, that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades."<br />
<br />
<b>Jefferson:</b> "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
The "good Scalia sentence," recall, was <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207879699.shtml">here</a>..]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207099612.shtml">
<title>Linkfest: Two More Decalogue Cases</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207099612.shtml</link>
<description>Two lawsuits handed down from the mountaintop &amp;mdash;...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-02T01:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Two lawsuits handed down from the mountaintop &mdash; <br />
<br />
<b>ITEM:</b> A Kentucky theocrat trying to sneak a Decalogue into a county courthouse under the "comprehensive historical display" exception of <i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1693">McCreary County v. ACLU</a></i>, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), was too clever for his own good:<blockquote>Reverend Shartzer's public comments demonstrate that he had a clear religious purpose for requesting to erect the Foundations Display. The September 18, 2001, minutes of the Grayson County Fiscal Court reflect that "Reverend Chester Shartzer addressed the Court concerning his desire for the County to place the Ten Commandments in the County buildings." Reverend Shartzer indicated that "there were several Counties in the State who ha[ve] them in their Courthouses." The minutes further reveal that Reverend Shartzer "explained that some Counties ha[ve] them hanging in a group of other historical documents. He said he thought the Civil Liberties would look more favorable toward it if they were hanging in a grouping with the other historical documents."</blockquote>The trial court had little choice but to acknowledge the open and notorious disingenuousness of the theocrat's wink-wink "sure it's secular" pretense, and subsequently struck down the display &mdash; which most likely would otherwise have withstood scrutiny under the <i>McCreary</i> - <i>Van Orden</i> <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1164741206.shtml">bifurcation</a>. An appeal is reportedly planned.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the truly "Christian" approach &mdash; not trying to force your faith on others in the first place &mdash; never came up. Go figure. (<i>ACLU of Kentucky v. Grayson County</i>, NO. 4:01CV-202, March 27, 2008) (<a href="http://religionclause.googlepages.com/ACLU-Grayson-case-3-08.pdf">PDF</a> - 23 pages). (Via <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/04/kentucky-court-permanently-enjoins-10.html">Religion Clause</a>.)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<b>ITEM:</b> The Supreme Court has <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/31/AR2008033102332.html">granted certiorari</a> in a case concerning an unusual Decalogue fact pattern in Utah:<blockquote>In this case, a religious group that operates from a pyramid outside Salt Lake City wants to place what it calls the <a href="http://www.summum.us/philosophy/principles.shtml">Seven Aphorisms</a> in a city park, contending that the words are lesser-known instructions that Moses received from God.<br />
<br />
Pleasant Grove City, Utah, said no. But a federal appellate court has agreed with the religious group Summum &mdash; founded in 1975 by its leader, Summum "Corky" Ra &mdash; that if a city accepts the Ten Commandments, it opens itself to requests from others and may not discriminate.</blockquote>From a reality-based perch, I'd love to be sympathetic to the politicians and bureaucrats of Pleasant Grove City. (That would pretty much be a first for me as far as <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/chain_1136857540.shtml">Utah</a> is concerned.) It simply cannot be the case that anyone and everyone who wants to erect a permanent monument in a public park must be allowed to do so (anyone want to chip in for a <a href="http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged/Nathaniel_Taggart">Nat Taggart statue</a>?).<br />
<br />
But it also simply cannot be the case that the aforementioned politicians and bureaucrats should have plenary authority to decide &mdash; based on whim, caprice and political expediency (both licit and illicit) &mdash; which monuments will and will not be approved. If no reasonable and equitable standard can be crafted, then the only viable standard is no monuments at all &mdash; or at least no religious monuments. Which would of course be perfectly reasonable and equitable to absolutely everyone &mdash; except the theocrats who created this mess in the first place. Go figure. (<i><a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Pleasant_Grove_City_UT_et_al_v_Summum">Pleasant Grove City v. Summum</a></i>, No. 07-665.)]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1204758421.shtml">
<title>A Moment of Reflection on Deference to Legislatures</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1204758421.shtml</link>
<description>To review: One of two arguments against non-deferential standards of judicial review (a/k/a "activist judges") is that a legislature is better equipped to research policy questions. Congress &amp;mdash; or a state...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-03-05T23:03+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[To review: One of two arguments against non-deferential standards of judicial review (a/k/a "activist judges") is that a legislature is better equipped to research policy questions. Congress &mdash; or a state legislature or town council or school board &mdash; can hold committee hearings, conduct field research, prepare detailed reports and debate legislation to a far greater extent than a judge or panel of judges ever could.<br />
<br />
(The second argument &mdash; that elected legislators better reflect the "will of the majority" &mdash; is irrelevant to this post. For a sample of my thoughts on that premise, see <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1137626750.shtml">here</a>.)<br />
<br />
The problem, quite frankly, with "legislators can research issues better than judges" is that "can" is not synonymous with "do." To assume that politicians actually do their homework, or base their votes on such research, naively assumes facts not in evidence.<br />
<br />
Indeed, "homework" (i.e., public education) is <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-moment-of-silence-both_05mar05,1,2607918.story">a great example</a>:<blockquote>Most legislators thought it was a terrific idea last fall when they required students in Illinois schools to have a moment of silence to pray or reflect, but House lawmakers now think they could have used a few more moments for reflection themselves before they put the law in place.<br />
<br />
The House voted Tuesday to reverse the requirement after getting an earful of complaints from school administrators and teacher unions who found the requirement poorly thought out and unenforceable.<br />
...<br />
Chicago Public Schools spokesman Mike Vaughn said the district supports [the proposed reversal]. "We don't consider a moment of silence a good use of classroom time and don't plan on implementing one in our district," he said.</blockquote>A bill that was: (a) in no way urgent; (b) micromanaging a major governmental activity (public education), and (c) <a href="http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=78199">constitutionally suspect</a>, was passed (and also veto-overridden) without any "deference-deserving" legislator taking the time to actually ask teachers and educrats what they thought or how they would respond to such a bill. (Or, alternatively, these activist legislators simply didn't care about what teachers and educrats thought. Was this a pro-education bill or a pro-theocracy bill disguised as a pro-education bill?)<br />
<br />
Such processes and outcomes are, of course, the rule and not the exception. This legislative embarrassment is merely a compact, uncomplicated example. But rest assured: it happens all the time, in every legislature, on almost every vote.<br />
<br />
So remind me again why judges should defer to it?<br />
<br />
(Via <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/03/illinois-house-votes-to-eliminate.html">Religion Clause</a>.)]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1204154807.shtml">
<title>William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P.</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1204154807.shtml</link>
<description>I was trying to find William F. Buckley, Jr.'s infantile, insulting and insolently inaccurate 1982 column on Ayn Rand's death, when I instead stumbled upon this:...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-02-28T01:02+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I was trying to find William F. Buckley, Jr.'s infantile, insulting and insolently inaccurate 1982 column on Ayn Rand's death, when I instead stumbled upon <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0306/14/smn.15.html">this</a>:<blockquote>There's nobody more interesting than Ayn Rand, the founder of the Objectivist Order. And she was pretty assertive in the late '50s. She figured that the conservatism that didn't embrace her point of view 100 percent was going to sort of die of malnutrition.</blockquote>That was William F. Buckley, Jr., in 2003.<br />
<br />
Isn't it interesting that "the conservatism that didn't embrace her point of view 100 percent" (i.e., the conservatism of George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Bill Kristol, etc.) is indeed now dying, not of malnutrition but rather of gluttony &mdash; the gluttony of political megalomania, moral self-righteousness, irrational mysticism and primitive bigotry, all glued together with the stale kiddie paste of mob rule and adorned with the glitter-on-glue of petty hypocrisy?<br />
<br />
Movements come and go. Philosophies endure. Buckley founded a movement. Rand founded a philosophy.<br />
<br />
Now that both are dead, the real test of whose ideas will win out over whose can begin in earnest.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
Incidentally, the Buckley column I was looking for is &mdash; <i>"Ayn Rand, R.I.P.,"</i> dated April 2, 1982 (<a href="http://cumulus.hillsdale.edu:8080/buckley/Standard/downloads/showoriginal/aynrandripdotpdf_1153702154_buckley/AynRandRIP.pdf">PDF</a> - 3 pages).]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1201744355.shtml">
<title>Organized Religion's Blood Libel Against Atheism</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1201744355.shtml</link>
<description>Can someone explain to me why apologists for religion so easily get stuck on stupid in this manner?...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-01-31T01:01+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Can someone explain to me why <a href="http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/have_the_new_atheists_read_nie.php">apologists for religion</a> so easily get <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=961">stuck on stupid</a> in this manner?<blockquote>The inevitable, even clichéd, response on the part of theists to this litany of woes is to ask: what about Hitler and Stalin? Yes, the question resorts to the hackneyed rhetorical ploy of et tu quoque (Latin for "So's your old man"). But at least the question's inevitability forces the atheist to show his hand. Thus Dawkins lamely avers that Hitler did believe in God (of sorts) and, hey, Stalin attended an Orthodox seminary in his youth! If that retort seems a tad desperate, England's most pious unbeliever concludes with this wan distinction: "Stalin was an atheist and Hitler probably wasn't, but even if he was, the bottom line of the Stalin/Hitler debating point is very simple. Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism." So it's not atheism that's the problem, only atheists!</blockquote>Leave it to a Jesuit priest &mdash; no blood on their hands, right? &mdash; to be so good at obfuscation.<br />
<br />
Here's the redux, without the snarky Jesuit straw man prestidigitation about Dawkins:<blockquote><b>Atheist:</b> It's reasonable to conclude that perhaps 90% of all killing and 99% of all cruelty in human history has been inflicted in the name of, or legitimized by, organized religion.<br />
<br />
<b>Theist:</b> But some of the other 10% was done by Hitler and Stalin, who were atheists!<br />
<br />
<b>Atheist:</b> So almost 100% of all killing and suffering has been done either in the name of organized religion, legitimized by organized religion, or replicated by those who merely sought to replace organized religion with another form of anti-intellectual, yield-to-authority, reason-denying worship &mdash; of the Volk, the State, or some other anti-individualist, anti-mind, power-greater-than-you construct. How exactly does that help the radically incredulous theist claim that blind faith &mdash; in whatever &mdash; has been a net positive for humanity?<br />
<br />
<b>Theist:</b> But, but &mdash; Hitler!</blockquote>Hitler was a male. Hitler was an Austrian. Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was a Taurus. Hitler was left-handed. Hitler was an atheist. So what? What does any of that have to do with the millenia of unspeakable misery perpetrated upon humanity by organized religion?]]></content:encoded>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>