Success!!

So today at the store, I got back 60 cents in change. All well and good, but when I grabbed the quarters to put them in the pile for de-godding, I noticed that one of them looked a little different. “In [smudge] We Trust”, it read, unless my eyes deceived me.

success

Yes! Now, I had never used any quarters at that store, so this must have come from a parking meter, or from the little cafe near my office, or from the UNICEF box at Halloween. Not from a busker–they always got dollar coins, and always more than one (even the lousy ones got 2 bucks minimum–I kept telling myself, it’s not my money to spend, it’s our money to put in circulation).

This coin does look like one of mine, but of course there is another, even better possibility–that there are more of us out there, de-godding coins that will be around for decades.

Free Speech, Or Plot To Kill And Eat His Wife?

We see these rights as absolute—
No state would dare restrict ‘em—
We have not broken any law…
Until there is a victim.

We’re free to speak of fantasies
Of murder, rage, or hate—
We haven’t crossed the line, of course,
Until… it is too late.

Our whispered, dark conspiracies
Are safely out of reach—
Until you find a body,
Hey, you can’t restrict free speech!

In the New York Times today, a troubling story of the cop on trial for conspiring to kill and eat a number of women, including his wife. She’s the one who accidentally stumbled across the evidence on a home computer. Her husband had been chatting on some fetish sites online, and she found detailed descriptions of how she and some of her friends were to be tortured, killed, and cannibalized.

Or… the officer was merely engaging in fantasy writing, with no plans to actually do anything he described. Torture porn has a market, after all, and the first amendment is there to protect the speech we detest. I have, in satirical verses, linked to a cannibalism site (one I sincerely believe is itself satire). These were only words, after all, and no one is harmed by mere words.

No one harmed. Imagine finding such writing, naming you (some people don’t have to stretch much to imagine such a thing). In this case, the woman moved from New York to Nevada, and contacted the FBI, understandably frightened for her life. No one harmed.

It will be interesting to watch this one play out. Words have consequences, and free speech is not absolute. And while this case is obviously an extreme, we can see the roles in this case reflected in so many other places. To what extent can you say, even to yourself, that hurting someone is any more acceptable because it is just with words?

There is one aspect to this case that sets it aside from the others that spring to mind–the officer clearly never intended his writing to be discovered by his wife. If it was mere fantasy (as the defense claims), any harm it did (and it did do real harm, unquestionably) was unintentional. There are others waving the free speech banner who are quite intentionally attacking others.

In a way, that makes them worse than this guy.

Dear Mister Minister (re: DEAR MR ATHEIST)

Dear Mister Minister…

I read your little letter—and I disagree, I fear—
Since you don’t allow for comments there, I’ll have to comment here:
It’s written very clearly, and it isn’t very long,
But your letter has a fatal flaw: its premises are wrong!
You paint us a position, which you eagerly refute
But the rights you say we fight against are nothing we dispute!
You can put religious symbols up, in prominent display;
In the schools and in the courthouse, you have every right to pray;
You have built yourself a strawman as the target of your rant—
You may practice your religion… it’s the government that can’t.

In your houses, in your churches, in the windows of your store,
You can spraypaint “Merry Christmas” till your fingertips are sore
In a restaurant, as in your home, feel free to say your grace,
It’s your personal behavior, though it’s in a public place.
It’s the government’s behavior that’s restricted by our laws,
So the government’s the target of that first amendment clause
Our founders had their different faiths, and with those faiths as guides
They determined that our government should not be taking sides
So if one faith is promoted, in the courthouse or the schools,
Then the other faiths are second-class… and that’s against the rules.

You can see how this arrangement’s in the interest of the church
And it wouldn’t take you very long, if you should care to search,
To collect a load of cases where a church has been protected
From the power of a different church the government selected.
Should a town begin its meetings with a public “let us pray…”
But a handful of their citizens praise God a different way
Or are Muslims, Jews, or Hindus (but who live there nonetheless)
They can use the first amendment as the answer to this mess
It’s protection of religion at the center of the fights
As we teach each local government our first amendment rights

So the “Apprising Ministries” blog doesn’t allow comments, but pastor-teacher Ken Silva wrote an open letter to a “Mr. Atheist”:

This nation in which we live was—beyond question—founded by religious people. Now, I’m not saying Christian—but certainly people of deeply held religious convictions. There’s no way around that.

So, exactly what makes your perceived right not to have to view religious symbols in public places and hear people pray in public, trump my actual right to display such symbols and to pray in public?

There’s a neat trick there–did you catch it?

I’m purposely avoiding the red herring about Christianity here as the founders considered “these truths self-evident,” that men are created, which presupposes the Creator Who endows them with rights.

He tells us he’s avoiding that red herring… but then goes on to present the real red herring, his second paragraph. No atheist I am aware of (even those who find such practices annoying, though I’ll admit there are a few of those) wants to deny pastor Ken his right to view religious symbols or pray in public. Not in the slightest. He can put them in his lawn, on the lawn of his church, in the front window of his store, or anywhere where the property owners have given him permission to dos so. Mind you, he can’t put them in my yard, but he doesn’t seem to have a problem with that. He can pray in my yard, if he happens to stop by there while walking his dog. I can’t stop him from that.

But if he is acting as a representative of the government–as mayor, councilperson, public school teacher, or judge, for instance, then he cannot, while acting on behalf of the government, favor one religion over another. He’ll have to wait until he’s on his own time.

Pastor Ken is right–our founding fathers were religious. They held different faiths, and saw what happens when one, but not others, of those faiths are chosen as the official faith of the government. For the protection of religious groups themselves, they chose to prohibit the government from taking sides.

Looks to me like the government likes to talk about selected views of America’s founding fathers while conveniently ignoring the fact that the religious should prevail in such things, not the atheists.

Pastor Ken, your fight against atheists is a very recent thing. The first amendment establishment clause was meant to protect your faith against other faiths (and vice versa). Even today, for instance in Jackson, OH, one of the plaintiffs is a Christian. That person’s Christian views are at odds with the Christian views held by the school board. Now, those school board members have every right to practice their religion. But when they are acting as school board members (a minority of their time, and under very specific circumstances) they are the government, and the government has no right to treat this Christian plaintiff like a second-class citizen because of his or her religious beliefs.

I should hope you would be in favor of protecting this plaintiff’s rights. But it’s tough, when you are in the privileged position of an overwhelming religious majority, to recognize that the giving up of some of your privilege is not the same as an infringement on your rights.

Atheists are not fighting against your rights. We actually fight for them. But rights belong to everyone; if you want special treatment (say, the ability to have the government support your view exclusively), that is not a right, that’s a privilege.

So, back to your question:

So, exactly what makes your perceived right not to have to view religious symbols in public places and hear people pray in public, trump my actual right to display such symbols and to pray in public?

Let me fix that, because it’s just not true.

What makes your perceived right to have government support for your religion, trump everyone else’s actual right to be free from government intrusion into their religion?

A One-Way Wall?

A door that doesn’t open?
Why, that’s not a door at all.
A door that doesn’t open
Is a wall.

If you want to pass right through it
Well, that’s not what walls are for.
If you want to pass right through it
Use a door.

It’s a wall of separation
That the founding fathers planned.
It’s a wall of separation
Understand?

If we have to stay on our side
And we cannot bother you—
If we have to stay on our side
So must you.

When the law applies to both of us
And neither side can gain…
When the law applies to both of us…
You complain.

Over at The Blaze (don’t judge me!), a story of a Pennsylvania community’s response to the FFRA’s complaint about a City Hall nativity scene.

They are going to put the nativity scene on a truck, and park it outside City Hall. (Which, so long as the truck has to obey the traffic (and other) laws, and is not given special parking privileges, is fine by me. If it’s a city-owned truck, we might have to talk.)

But that’s not the fun part. The fun part, as always, is the comment thread. It is astonishing how poorly The Blaze’s real American Patriot types grasp the law. Anti-atheist, of course, but also antisemitic, anti-wiccan, and pro-majority. It’s the sound of privilege and ignorance, best buddies.

The first amendment, you know, was intended to protect churches from government intrusion. (agreed!) Not to prevent the majority religion from expressing itself in the public square, with the backing of the government. (um… no.) Fortunately, The Blaze’s commenters know better than decades of supreme court decisions (well, they must, because they disagree with these decisions, and they must be right). So, go learn from these sages.

Or better yet, don’t.

Pennsylvania Pol Panders, Protecting Public Pledge

“I pledge allegiance…” no, I don’t.
A public prayer? Again, I won’t.
My first amendment rights allow my protest in this case!

The Pennsylvania House, this week
Observed a Rep refuse to speak
The chairman made an issue just to pander to his base.

A Democrat refused to pray
Though why she did, I cannot say
Perhaps she knows that Jesus was opposed to public prayer

The chairman (from the GOP)
Decided (so it seems to me)
That pledging one’s allegiance is the government’s affair

The chairman doesn’t find it odd
To swear allegiance “under God”
And hold this as a standard for the country to enforce

The chairman will defend the pledge
Because he finds it gives an edge
Political expedience will always be his course.

PA lawmaker refuses to say Pledge of Allegiance at House meeting

Democratic Rep. Babette Josephs said the words “under God” in the Pledge make it a prayer, and she refused to say it.

When Republican Chairman Darryl Metcalfe, who represents Butler, asked Josephs to lead the pledge, she refused.

As everyone was standing to say the pledge, Josephs said, “Based on my First Amendment rights and based on the fact that I really think it’s a prayer, I don’t pray in public.”

Josephs is retiring in just a few days, so there’s not much reason for this, other than Metcalfe grubbing for points with his base.

“Up until now, the idea of being American and believing in God were synonymous”

At the Washington Post, Sally Quinn is the most—
The most wrong, most annoying, most vile
Now she’s written a screed that’s offensive indeed
And it’s full of the usual bile
Says “belief is a must, cos in God we do trust
So our coins are the ones God would favor
You can see every time, on a nickel or dime…”
And again, I pull out my engraver

Oh, it’s badly thought out, badly written, and (yay!) badly received.

This is a religious country. Part of claiming your citizenship is claiming a belief in God, even if you are not Christian.. We’ve got the Creator in our Declaration of Independence. We’ve got “In God We Trust” on our coins. We’ve got “one nation under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance. And we say prayers in the Senate and the House of Representatives to God.

An atheist could never get elected dog catcher, much less president. (Democratic Rep. Pete Stark of California is a nontheist but doesn’t talk much about it).

Up until now, the idea of being American and believing in God were synonymous.

The comments are hilarious. And, for the most part, excellent.

But, as per my promise, this means once more into the breach, and another batch of coins gets de-godded.

Texas Cheerleaders Fight The Tyranny Of The Minority

In Texas, where football’s religion
And religion is bigger each year
Where the cheerleading squad
Gives all glory to god
And sings praises to Jesus in cheer

There’s a school where they all read the bible
And the handful who don’t, watch their backs
Because Jesus comes first
All the kids do their worst
To protect Him from any attacks

They’ve been painting some scripture on banners
Which they bring, Friday night, to the game
And if some disagree
Why, they’re no one you’ll see
Because everyone here feels the same

But it seems that some cowardly loser
Wants the biblical stuff taken down
But the cheerleaders fought
As God knows that they ought—
It’s majority rules in this town

And the popular kids are all Christian
And the teachers and staff are as well
If some miserable few
Might be Muslim or Jew—
Even atheist—no one can tell

Cos we’re free to express our religion
And we’re free to impose it on you
We’re expressing our rights
By the stadium lights
Close your eyes, if you don’t like the view

We believe that our speech is protected
On the field, in the halls, on the bus
If you, too, want free speech
Then your dream is in reach…
It’s so simple: be Christian like us.

Texas Cheerleaders fight for the right to wave Bible-passage banners.

Guess God Was Only Ceremonial, After All

When grinding the “God” off your money, it’s funny,
It really brings home how the whole thing’s absurd
It’s patently clear—as I’m grinding, I’m finding
They think “God” is special; it’s only a word.
The metal where I am engraving’s behaving
Exactly the same as the rest of it does—
No magical force to make God’s word the odd word
As strong or as weak as the rest of it was.

Some see what I’ve done to a dollar, and holler
“Defacing our currency’s wrong, don’t you know?”
I’d call minting wrong in the first place the worst case
“God” didn’t belong, and so “God” had to go.
True, Congress won’t give God’s removal approval
But this is a cure that the law does allow
So these are the coins I’m intending on spending…
I like them much better the way they are now.

Pile of de-godded dollar coins

If the last post was “Before“, I suppose this one is “During”. “After” comes when these puppies are in circulation, which might be a bit harder to get pics of–or at least, more awkward. Again, greater context here.

This was trivially easy to do–on brand-new coins, it’s actually difficult to see that anything has been done at all; the coins are shiny enough that the freshly-exposed metal doesn’t stand out. On the older Sacajawea dollars (you can see one in the middle of the pile), the de-godification is a little easier to see, at least until the metal oxidizes again and it will look like regular wear.