Satanist wins legal victory against Missouri's draconian anti-abortion laws.

Courtesy of World Religion News:  

An anonymous Missouri woman, identified only as Mary Doe in public court documents, has won a significant legal victory in Western District Court of Appeals in her aim to show that her religious beliefs are being violated by state abortion laws. The court said that her constitutional challenge presented a disputed right which includes reasonable space for disagreement and fair doubt as well. Mary Doe is also an adherent of Satanism. 

Doe, an adherent of The Satanic Temple, argued her religion does not harbor the belief that conception is the beginning of life. The prerequisites, due to this belief, for an abortion procedure in Missouri are directly violating her religious freedom. The latter is protected by First Amendment. Her suit names Josh Hawley, the Missouri Attorney General, and Governor Eric Greitens. Incidentally, Doe's claims were at first thrown out by Cole County Circuit Court. She then appealed the decision. 

The Satanic organization regards Satan as a personal autonomy symbol. It promotes 'rational inquiry' and compassion. The Satanists argue that the abortion restrictions imposed by Missouri, including the state's informed consent law along with the compulsory waiting period of 72 hours violate religious belief of one of the organization's members. The complaint against Missouri was filed by the Satanists in May 2015. 

Oh come on, you have to love this!

Using a religious freedom argument to defeat abortion laws informed by a primitive religious world view is almost too sweet to believe.

And before any of the slack jawed morons come over here and get their panties in a twist over the fact that this woman identifies as a Satanist, remember that the Satanic Temple is really a free thinkers group who shroud themselves in religious trappings in order to defeat these archaic laws drawn up by religious nutjobs.

Before leaving office President Obama signs bill protecting Atheists and Freethinkers. I knew I loved this guy.

Courtesy of the Progressive Secular Humanist:  

For the first time, atheists and other nonreligious persons are explicitly named as a class protected by the law. 

President Barack Obama has signed into law the Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act. The new law protects atheists, humanists, and other freethinkers around the world from religious persecution. 

Congress passed the international religious freedom bill protecting atheists, humanists, and other non-theists last week with overwhelming bipartisan support, and Obama signed the legislation into law last Friday, Dec. 16. 

The new law explicitly protects atheists, humanists, and other non-theists, and upgrades the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act. 

I have to admit that as impressed as I am that Obama signed this bill, I am even more impressed that it received bipartisan support.

That is good news for this country, and even better news for those of us shunned by society for our critical thinking skills.

Also keep in mind that it is HIGHLY doubtful that this bill would have been written, or signed during a Donald Trump presidency.

Even with one foot out the door President Obama has our backs.

Six of the current GOP presidential hopefuls promise to support legislation allowing businesses to discriminate against gay people under the guise of "religious liberty."

Courtesy of Think Progress:  

Six of the Republican candidates vying for the presidency have signed a pledge promising to support legislation during their first 100 days in the White House that would use the guise of “religious liberty” to give individuals and businesses the right to openly discriminate against LGBT people. 

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee vowed to push for the passage of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), legislation that would prohibit the federal government from stopping discrimination by people or businesses that believe “marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman” or that “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” 

The pledge is supported by three conservative groups: the American Principles Project, Heritage Action for America, and Family Research Council Action. 

“It has become clear that the First Amendment Defense Act is rapidly becoming a signature issue that unifies the GOP,” Maggie Gallagher, Senior Fellow at American Principles Project, said in the group’s statement announcing the pledge. “Three out of the four top contenders for the nomination — Carson, Cruz, and Rubio — have pledged to prioritize passing FADA in their first 100 days of office. Additionally, Bush, Graham, Paul, and now for the first time, Donald Trump, have publicly expressed support for FADA.” 

Gallagher added that a Republican win in 2016 could mean that FADA becomes reality. “Real, concrete protections for gay marriage dissenters appear to be just one election victory away,” she said.

This is for all of you who are claiming they will sit this election out if the Democratic candidate of your choice does not win the nomination. 

Time to grow the fuck up and recognize just what is at stake.

Or should I also bring up the potential Supreme Court appointments?

500 Alabama Christians protest the removal of a "Christian flag" from the local police department.

Courtesy of Christian Post:

Over 500 Christians rallied in support of religious freedom in Alabama on Saturday after a Christian flag that once flew over a local police department was forcibly removed amid threats of legal action from the nation's largest atheist organization. 

The mayor of Glenco said he had no choice but to remove the Christian flag from outside the police department after the city received a complaint letter from the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation. 

"That would just about ruin us. … That's what they do, they pick on these smaller towns that can't defend ourselves," said Mayor Charles Gilchrist to WBRC Fox 6, noting the decision was made to remove the flag last month to avoid the costs of a potentially lengthy litigation. 

Samuel Lowe, founder and Etowah County director of First Responders for Christ, which helped organize the religious freedom rally called "United We Stand," told The Christian Post on Monday that "sin" is what led to the flag's removal. 

"On the surface the flag removal appears to be a battle over the fictitious separation of church and state," he said, "but the underlying reason the flag was removed was due to the separation between God and man because of the sin that's in man's heart."

So the flag was not removed because of the "fictitious" separation of church and state? But rather because of the sin in man's heart?

Yeah okay.

Well if there is no separation between church and state, and it is perfectly okay to fly a flag promoting a certain religion then I suppose this group would have no problem flying a Muslim flag, or Hindu flag, or a Jewish flag right?

Hell what about a flag celebrating Jainism.

I mean there's a conversation starter for you.

No these idiots only want religious freedom when it is THEIR religion that is free to insinuate itself into local governments and school districts.

If this were the flag of another religion they would be rioting in the streets to have it removed. Bet on it.

Tuesday morning cartoon.

New book uncovers the ugliness that hides within the hearts of self proclaimed "Christians" when they feel called to defend their faith.

Courtesy of Salon:  

Over the past few years, America has been divided by religion. The culture wars have heated up with secularists on one side and God-fearing Americans on the other, and to understate things: They disagree. But does that mean we hate one another? If the animosity is so intense, what kind of outrage goes too far? Bonnie Weinstein has tackled this issue in an important but very troubling book out Dec. 2, titled “To the Far Right Christian Hater … You Can Be a Good Speller or a Hater, But You Can’t Be Both: Official Hate Mail, Threats, and Criticism From the Archives of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.” 

Married to Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), the author has collected and annotated a sampling of the hate mail the foundation has received over the past few years. This hate mail is not trolling or anonymous “Internet comments.” The letters are specific and threatening and most often include a return address or email. The Weinsteins’ home has been vandalized — many times — and the family has had to take serious and expensive security measures. It’s no joke. As I read the book, curled up on my couch, my wife kept asking if I was OK. My face was fixed in an expression of horror and disbelief as I read the rage, hate and cruelty cataloged on every page. Bonnie has uncovered a shocking reality: Self-professed Christians deny the fundamental humanity of other people they don’t even know. 

As hard as it was to read in places, it’s important to read and understand. It offers an unflinching examination of a subset of American fundamentalism, created by a segment of our society that is whiter, more conservative and a lot angrier than the rest of America. For some people the future of their faith and of the nation are in danger, threatened by secular forces controlled by Satan himself. This existential threat to Christian supremacy justifies the most offensive, vulgar and cruel letters I’ve ever read. Think I’m overstating it? Read the book.

"Self-professed Christians deny the fundamental humanity of other people they don’t even know." Gee, ya think?

 As somebody who has been on the receiving end of some of this vitriol I am completely unsurprised by the fact that so-called "Christians" can be filled with an almost bottomless pit of hatred which bubbles to the surface whenever they feel their religion or idols are under attack.

I have little doubt that the people who called the school where I worked and threatened to shoot me on the playground would self identify as Christians.

Just as the people who send the off times hilariously angry comments to Richard Dawkins. Which he enjoys reading aloud to his supporters.

Of course the idea that being a Christian, whether practicing or merely for ornamental purposes, makes you a more ethical or moral person is utter nonsense. Yet that is the conceit used to sell the religion to the masses, and impress upon people that these believers should be trusted and admired above all others.

These letters do much to disprove that assertion.

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision retreats somewhat from the Hobby Lobby case on Monday. The only three female Justices issue blistering dissent.

Courtesy of Politico:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Wheaton College doesn’t have to abide by the Obamacare contraceptive coverage requirement as long as the Christian school tells the Obama administration that it has a religious objection to providing birth control to its employees and students. 

The order from a 6-3 court, and a scathing dissent, may foreshadow the second round of legal battles expected to take place in the Supreme Court later this year. On Monday, the court ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that closely held companies could be exempted from the contraception mandate if their owners had religious objections. 

This did not go over too well with three of the Supreme Court Justices. Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagen, who issued a frustrated response.  

“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today,” Sotomayor wrote. “After expressly relying on the availability of the religious-nonprofit accommodation to hold that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] as applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Court now, as the dissent in Hobby Lobby feared it might, retreats from that position.” 

Sotomayor also stressed the rarity of a Supreme Court emergency injunction, arguing that Wheaton’s potential for fines didn’t warrant the high court’s intervention. And she questioned whether the self-certification form that the Illinois college would fill out as part of that accommodation is a legitimate burden. 

“Let me be absolutely clear: I do not doubt that Wheaton genuinely believes that signing the self-certification form is contrary to its religious beliefs,” she wrote. “But thinking one’s religious beliefs are substantially burdened — no matter how sincere or genuine that belief may be — does not make it so.” 

Well it looks like Ruth Bader Ginsburg was dead right in her dissent to the Hobby Lobby ruling.

Not that any of us should be surprised.

Virginia official admits that protecting religious freedom is really only about protecting the religious freedom of Christians.

Al Bedrosian, all for religious tolerance. If you worship the right religion that is.

Courtesy of Raw Story:

“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Al Bedrosian, who sits on the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. “If we allow everything, where do you draw the line?” 

The Republican said Monday, after the high court ruled 5-4 that legislative prayer did not violate the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion, that he would not vote to allow non-Christians to deliver invocations. 

“I think America, pretty much from Founding Fathers on, I think we have to say more or less that we’re a Christian nation with Christian ideology,” Bedrosian said. “If we’re a Christian nation, then I would say that we need to move toward our Christian heritage.” 

Those remarks echoed statements he made several years ago in an editorial published in the Roanoke Times, where he described freedom of religion as a “hoax” and claimed “the global warming crowd worships the environment as god, the abortionist has the death of unborn babies as their god, and the homosexuals have sexual freedom as their god.” 

“The real battle is keeping the name of Jesus as Lord,” Bedrosian wrote in 2007. “The name Jesus is what makes us a Christian people and a Christian nation. This is why we must continue our heritage as a Christian nation and remove all other gods.” 

That’s what Bedrosian intends to do in his position as county supervisor, saying he would reject any request by any non-Christian adherent to deliver a religious or secular invocation. 

“I would say no,” Bedrosian said. “That does not infringe on their freedom of religion. The truth is you’re trying to infringe on my right, because I don’t believe that.”

I have said for many years that if  the fundamentalist Christians in this country could figure out how to protect THEIR religion while criminalizing all others, they would do it in a heartbeat.

However the founding fathers, despite what the Evangelicals will tell you, were actually interested in protecting the religious rights of all, rather than to proclaim the country a Christian nation and vilify all of those who refused to worship in the dictated by the majority.

That is why the recent Supreme Court decision that Christian prayers recited before town council meetings were not unconstitutional is bad news for those who embrace true religious freedom.

After all look what happened when the U.S. Senate allowed a Hindu holy man to provide the opening prayer.

Yep, you can almost feel the religious tolerance, can't you?

Hey, is it possible the Religious Right has simply been reading the wrong Constitution all of this time?

It has been said before, but it bears repeating, if the Fundamentalists in this country want to go someplace where one religion is allowed to dominate all others and where religion goes together will politics like peanut butter and jihad, there IS such a place.

Idaho Republican lawmaker fights law aimed at curbing deaths that result from faith healing. Because you know, Jesus.

Courtesy of Raw Story: 

A Republican lawmaker in Idaho is trying to stop a law aimed at preventing the deaths of children whose parents eschew medical treatment in favor of prayer. The Associated Press reported that state Rep. Christy Perry (R) believes that a law proposed by Democratic Rep. John Gannon violates religious freedom of families who believe God’s will supercedes modern medicine. 

“This is about religious beliefs, the belief God is in charge of whether they live, and God is in charge of whether they die,” said Perry of the Followers of Christ, an extremist group who have let at least four children die of treatable illnesses in the last three years. 

“This is about where they go for eternity,” she insisted. 

Gannon proposed the law after a string of deaths in Marsing, Idaho among the congregation of the Followers of Christ church. Autopsy reports of multiple children showed that their deaths could have been prevented by medical intervention. Instead, their bodies now lie in a cemetery overlooking the Snake River. 

In June of 2012, 15-year-old Arrian Jade Granden contracted food poisoning. Her autopsy showed that three days of vomiting ruptured her esophagus, causing her to hemorrhage to death. 

Toddler Preston John Bowers died at age 22 months of pneumonia in March of 2011. That same month, 14-year-old Rockwell Alexander Sevy died of a respiratory infection that blossomed into pneumonia, according to Canyon County Coroner Vicki Degeus-Morris. 

Linda Martin, a former Followers of Christ member, lent her voice to Gannon’s campaign to narrow Idaho’s religious exemptions to its injury-to-a-child laws.

"This is about where they go for eternity." That essentially places more importance on access to a fairytale life after death scenario, than it does on keeping the child around for the one life we know for a fact they have available to them.

That is insane!

Every parent should prioritize protecting their children in THIS life, over concerns about what happens to them in the next. If religion interferes with that, then it meets the definition of evil in my mind.

This kind of thinking angers me to my very core. And parents who eschew modern medicine in favor of superstitious nonsense should have their children removed from their home.

Just saying. 

Air Force Academy cadets are no longer required to end Honor Oath with "so help me God." The Right Wing to freak out about this in 3..2..1

Courtesy of ABC News 15:  

Air Force Academy cadets are no longer required to say "so help me God" at the end of the Honor Oath, school officials said Friday. 

The words were made optional after a complaint from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group, that they violated the constitutional concept of religious freedom. 

Academy Superintendent Lt. Gen. Michelle Johnson said the change was made to respect cadets' freedom of religion. 

The oath states, "We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does. Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and to live honorably, so help me God." 

Cadets are required to take the oath once a year, academy spokesman Maj. Brus Vidal said. 

It is not taken out completely, it is still there for those who want it. And as Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundations, points out in the article there still might be times when it may be included even if the cadet does not want it.

However this is yet another positive step forward in respecting the belief systems, or lack of belief systems, of individuals in these academies and that is a good thing for everybody.

Unless of course your religion relies on indoctrination, or bullying people into giving thanks to your God whether they believe in him or not that is. But seriously, whose religion would be THAT insidious?

Forget about protecting gay kids from bullying, the REAL victims of bullying are young Christians.

Courtesy of HuffPo:

 The clip, produced by Idaho-based group Reach America, features teens saying they will build "an army" commanded by Christ. 

"We are in a war for the hearts and souls of our generation," one says. "Failure is not an option," another adds. 

The video begins with a parade of teens staring into the camera, asking questions, including: Why can't I pray in school? Why are they taking God out of my history books? Why am I called names because I believe in marriage the way God designed it? 

Public school has become godless, the teens argue. Far from what the Founding Fathers envisioned, the school system is now a place where students are rude, teachers force them to look at "pornographic" sex education images and bullies call Christians "hateful," "hypocrites" and "bigots" for their beliefs, they say.

Huffpo goes on to point out the inaccuracies in the video, including their claim that "In 1963, the courts ruled the Bible unconstitutional." (Yes, you would think THAT would get more press.)

Look I feel for the persecuted Christians in this country, I do.

I man if only they could find a place where virtually EVERY politician were a member of their faith, or where they had the ability to keep people unlike themselves from getting married, or were able to gather and discuss their faith in buildings that did not have to worry about paying taxes while still enjoying police and fire protection.

I mean if ANY of those were in place I am certain they would not feel quite so downtrodden.

Or not.

You know I think this belongs here.

American Atheists use sayings by Sarah Palin and other conservatives to advertise their 50th anniversary celebration.

Courtesy of HuffPo:  

American Atheists rolled out the new signage over the weekend ahead of their 50th anniversary celebration, set to take place at the end of the month. 

One of the billboards featured Palin, alongside the quotation, "We should create law based on the God of the Bible.” 

The quote is a reference to a May 2010 appearance by Palin on Fox News, in which she denounced the backlash against the National Day of Prayer. At the time she suggested that critics were ignoring the Founding Fathers in their opposition to the large-scale expression of faith. 

"I think we should kind of keep this clean, keep it simple, go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant," she advised. "They're quite clear that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments." 

CNN reports that American Atheists public relations director Dave Muscato has admitted that the word "should" should not appear in quotes and has announced plans to make the correction. 

But Muscato and American Atheists President David Silverman told CNN that the “intent and context” of the billboard remains accurate. 

“Ms. Palin would stand by what we have quoted her as saying," Silverman claimed in a statement to CNN. 

Palin isn't the only Republican politician being used to promote the group's event. Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and former presidential candidate Newt Gingrich are both featured in other billboards, alongside accurate quotations.

Considering some of the ridiculous, and outlandish, things that fall out of Palin's maw I can't imagine anybody should be too concerned with the replacing of "would" with "should" while quoting her.

But hey at least atheists are willing to make changes to their way of thinking when presented with evidence which contradicts it, that is certainly more than can be said for most in the religious community.

Gee I wonder how Palin will feel about her copyrighted image being used to promote atheism?

Welcome to Friday's "News that needs more coverage" segment: Federal judge tosses out contraception case against Obamacare.

Courtesy of the Journal Star:  

A federal judge has dismissed a federal lawsuit in which Nebraska and six other states tried to block part of the federal health care law that requires contraception coverage. 

U.S. District Judge Warren Urbom of Lincoln dismissed the case Tuesday, saying the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the action challenging part of the Affordable Care Act. 

“Today’s decision completely disregards the federal government’s continued shell game when it comes to this rule,” said Attorney General Jon Bruning. “Essentially, this decision asks millions of Americans to watch and wait for their religious liberties to be violated. Obviously, we’re disappointed with the ruling, and we will consult with our co-plaintiffs to assess our next steps.” 

The attorneys general for Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas joined Bruning's challenge of the contraception rule. All are Republican. 

The ACA was one of the cornerstones of Democratic President Barack Obama's 2008 election campaign. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld most of the provisions of the law. 

Plaintiffs also included three Nebraska-based groups -- Catholic Social Services, Pius X High School and the Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America -- along with a nun and a female missionary. 

The lawsuit challenged a rule that requires contraception coverage in health care plans -- including for employees of church-affiliated hospitals, schools and outreach programs. It argued that the rule violates the rights of employers that object to the use of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.

Urbom sided with the U.S. Justice Department, which argued that the plaintiffs did not show that they faced the immediate threat of having to offer the coverage, because the federal government delayed enforcement of the rule until August 2013. That so-called "safe harbor" provision is to allow accommodations to be worked out for some religious groups. 

More good news for the Obama administration.

Let me also take a moment to remind everybody that the SOLE reason that this case was brought before the judge was due to the fact that the Catholic church fears admitting that the Pope is NOT infallible. Once you understand that you can then become angry that our tax dollars are being wasted in legal maneuvers designed to eventually allow these organizations to restrict their female employees access to contraception based on their so-called "faith."

President Obama on religious freedom.

Best President ever!