Guns: God's great gift

When last I wrote about the Carroll County Maryland Board of Commissioners, mere weeks ago, they were explaining why it was perfectly OK for them to pray to their God for divine guidance before public board meetings.

And God, in his wisdom, apparently guided the board to a...um...special understanding of the Maryland State Firearms Act of 2013 (MSFA) as well as Maryland's previous gun laws, and to unanimously declare that the county is a "Second Amendment Sanctuary County."

The board's "Second Amendment Preservation" resolution declares the MSFA to be "pretended," AKA "unconstitutional," and further basically declares that the county will not act to enforce that law.

The board also declares "null and void within Carroll County, elements of any international treaties" that infringe on the right of citizens to own any and all guns and ammunition they want, without restriction.

And they support the creation of "a video documentary discussing Second Amendment concepts, and potential remedies available to citizens when confronted with unconstitutional infringements upon their liberties; case studies to include examples such as the Rosa Parks incident."

[Yes! We need to reflect upon the "incident" during which Rosa Parks was asked to move to a seat in the back of a bus, but she decided to stand her ground and showed the driver and other passengers that she was carrying. "See this gun which I have a Constitutional and God-given right to carry? Don't you dare tell me where to sit!" Rosa snarled, confident that her gun made her point for her.]

In the resolution's preamble, the commissioners point out that the right to own guns is granted by God, and that the Second Amendment merely confirms that right.

A few of you may be wondering, "How do the commissioners know that God gave us the unrestricted right to own guns and ammo?" Do you doubt that gun ownership is a right given by God? Don't be silly. The Bible, which God dictated to its writers--and also guided its many, many editors--offers a number of examples of God granting gun rights and approving of their use. Here is just a small sampling:

Even the non-religious may be familiar with God's 10 Commandments, including this one:

Thou shalt not kill, although thou shalt have a gun to kill if thou shalt decide to kill. (Exodus 20:13, NRA Version)

From the very beginning, God was in favor of unrestricted gun ownership:

God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And for this purpose I have given you every weapon without restriction. And you shall use the weapons I have given you to exercise your dominion over every living thing. And God saw it was good. (Genesis 1:26)

So he drove out the man [Adam]; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. But in his mercy, he let the man keep his weapon, which the man called gun. (Genesis 3:24)

The Bible also illustrates the danger of not owning a gun:

And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. For although God blessed all men with the right to possess a gun, Abel did not possess a gun, and so could not stop Cain his brother from slaying him. (Genesis 4:8)

And the advantages of using one:
 

And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a AK-47 with a 30-round clip, and shot it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that 30 bullets sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
So David prevailed over the Philistine with a gun and with bullets, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; there was no need for a sword in the hand of David. (1 Samuel 17:49-50)

But it's not just the Old Testament that confirms God's desire that all have the right to own the weapon of their choice.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. Yet my Father has given you guns, for if you are not to be killed, thou must kill first. (Matthew 5:21)

It is perhaps important to note that the divine rights granted by God, despite some belief to the contrary, are not just for Americans or for Christians, but for everyone. So every gun for everyone! That can't turn out badly if that's what God wants, right?

Hey, it's not the fault of the Carroll County Commissioners that they're all Christians and prefer to pray to Jesus

Two Carroll County Maryland residents are suing the county's Board of Commissioners for regularly opening its public meetings with Christian prayers invoking "Jesus" and "the Savior."

The two residents, who say that the five commissioners opened their official meetings with Christian prayers at least 54 times in the last two years, and during that time never prayed to non-Christian deities, have asked a federal judge to end the sectarian prayers by ruling they are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

However, board members, who take turns offering the pre-meeting prayer, have a really good reason for only praying to Jesus--they're all Christians.

According to The Baltimore Sun, board president Doug Howard explained, "It is simply that commissioner's individual thoughts. I am totally comfortable with what we are doing."

See? It's not the commissioners' fault that they all believe in Jesus and are comfortable with their Christian-only prayers.

I mean, do you expect them to pray to a god they don't believe in? Or some generic "god" or "creator" who either Jesus or those at the meetings might mistake for *gasp* a non-Christian god?!

It's also not the commissioners' fault if some of their constituents are not Christians and uncomfortable with Christian prayers or feel excluded and/or demeaned when only Christian prayers are offered.

The commissioners did not explain in The Sun's article why it's important for them to pray aloud to Jesus at their public meetings rather than silently, or perhaps pray among themselves before opening the meetings to the public.

Maybe Jesus is more impressed, and thus more likely to bless the board's work, its members, and the county, if the commissioners pray out loud at their public meetings, where everyone--in addition to Jesus--can see and hear them pray.

And starting the board meetings without any prayers is apparently not an option because...the commissioners want to pray, so, by golly, they're gonna?

Or they need to pray, because Jesus will be sad or angry if no one prays to him before the meeting?

County commisioner to employees: No pressure, but come pray with me, monthly, in the County Office Building

The Baltimore Sun reports that Robin Frazier, a Carroll County Maryland commissioner, recently "emailed an invitation to about 850 government employees to attend a monthly prayer session, which she will lead." Frazier's "time for prayer" will be held in the County Office Building beginning June 7.

Since Frazier has the right to privately pray, anytime, and anyplace, there must be a reason that she feels the need to ask 850 county employees to join her.

Some possible reasons:

• Frazier is really lonely talking to herself--which is really what praying to a mythological invisible superbeing is.
• Frasier is trying to promote religion as a leader of Carroll County government and pressure employees into participating in a religious practice in contravention of the First Amendment. But Frazier says there is "no pressure," even though the best way to show that she's not attempting to pressure employees to pray with her would be to not invite the county's employees to pray with her every month in the County Office Building. But really, rest assured, Frasier has no intention whatsoever in violating the principle of separation of church and state. She is quoted in The Sun as saying,"The Bible directs us to pray for our country." See? Nothing religious about that, right?
• Frasier wants everyone to admire what a good, pious Christian she is. "Read my email in which I talk about my plan to lead employees in a group prayer. Admire what a good, pious Christian I am. Come witness me praying and setting a good example for you all."
• Frasier is offering to share her special expertise in praying: "Let me lead you in prayer because you don't know how to pray on your own so I have to show you how to do it."
• Frasier is concerned that Carroll County employees no longer have churches or other places of worship to pray in and believes that they cannot pray in their homes or anywhere else outside of the County Office Building. The County Office Building is the only possible venue for prayer.

Frasier contends that she has the right to use the County Office Building for religious purposes because "[o]ther groups use this same building for noncounty business." So, I'm sure local Muslims, Wiccans, Pagans, Rastafarians, and Pastafarians could start meeting in the building every month, and Frasier would have no problem with that. Some non-Christian religious group needs to test that. Soon. Really. And don't forget to request the use of the County's email system to invite 850 County employees to attend!

Or better yet, since "other groups" can and do meet in the Carroll County Office Building according to Frasier, local atheist groups, humanists, skeptics, pro-choice and gay-rights groups, and organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State should start meeting there every month. Because that would be an awesome way for Frazier and the other county commissioners to show that the County Office Building space really is a forum open to all, and that they aren't mixing their personal religious beliefs in with every resident's government.

Concerns about County-sponsored Bible-based constitutional law speaker unfounded; hardly mentioned God at all

News that the Carroll County (Maryland) commissioners had funded, and asked County employees to attend, a seminar taught by Bible-based constitutional law expert David Whitney, the pastor of a Pasadena, Maryland church and a lecturer for the Institute on the Constitution, which coincidentally happens to be based in Pasadena, raised concerns among, and protests from, the finicky folks who object to the mixing of religion and government.

Whitney, unlike other scholars who could have been asked to teach a Maryland constitutional law seminar, understands the importance of The Bible in American law and government. According to The Baltimore Sun, Whitney said before the seminar was held on February 24, "We will be looking at the language of our founding fathers who wrote they were 'grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberties' front and center on this document. The Bible is the source of the authority that they looked to."

Any concerns about the improper mixing of religion and government were obviously needless from the start, since being a constitutional law expert, Whitney knows, full well, that teaching government employees attending a government-funded seminar about how God helped write the Maryland Constitution is perfectly OK, since that's merely a factual retelling of its history, and has absolutely nothing at all to do with his or any other religious beliefs.

The Carroll County commissioners also completely understand the issue of separation of church and state, and so obviously would not mix the two. Commissioner Richard Rothschild said, "It is perfectly appropriate to teach a course which factually explains the role God plays in our constitution."

Reports after the seminar also confirmed that any concerns about violation of the principle of separation of church and state were totally unjustified. As noted in another Sun article, written after the seminar, Whitney made only "a few" religious references including his making clear that "Our rights come from God, not the government."

Maryland same-sex marriage bill threatens religious liberty--at least according to Catholic bishops

Maryland Catholic bishops are opposing the proposed Maryland same-sex marriage bill because, they claim, it threatens the freedom of Catholics to practice their religion.
 
So the bill requires Catholic priests to perform same-sex marriages, right? Nope.

So the bill forces Catholics to marry only people of the same sex, right? Nope.

So the bill forces Catholics in heterosexual marriages to get a divorce, right? Nope.

Requires Catholic priests to preach about the rights of same-sex couples to marry? Nope.

Then the bill must close down Catholic churches, right? Nope.

Prevent Catholics from going to mass and participating in their sacraments? No.

Ban the saying of the rosary? No.

Force Catholics to give up saving bits of bones and skin and drops of blood from their saints as a health risk? No.

Oh...the bill keeps the Catholic bishops from insisting that everyone, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, live in accordance with Catholic religious beliefs, is that it? Yes! That's it!

Look, Catholic bishops, allowing same-sex marriages doesn't keep any Catholic from practicing any part of his or her faith. A law recognizing same sex marriage no more threatens Catholic religious liberty than laws allowing the prescribing, selling, and use of birth control do. (Of course, Catholic bishops might indeed believe that the government's permitting the use of birth control does threaten Catholic religious liberty, but the evidence of harm to the religious rights of Catholics is non-existent.)

Do you threaten the religious liberty of Jews and Muslims when you eat pork, or that of Hindus when you eat beef? Do you threaten the religious liberty of Mormons when you drink coffee? Do you threaten the religious liberty of Seventh Day Adventists when you work on a Saturday? Do you threaten the religious liberty of Jehovah's Witnesses by celebrating birthdays or getting a blood transfusion? Do you threaten the religious liberty of Jains when you kill mosquitoes or flies? Well, do you?

Bishops, stick to trying (but increasingly less successfully) to control the behavior of people who voluntarily choose to believe in the stuff you claim God has told you through the straight-from-God-to-the-minds-of-Catholic-authorities psychic pipeline. Keep out of the marriages and bedrooms of the rest of us.

Praying for better local government

I had mixed feelings about the article Praying in Public when I saw it on the front page of the May 14 Baltimore Sun.

In the article, The Sun describes the current practice of several Maryland local government bodies of praying during public meetings. And if that weren't bad enough, in several cases, the prayer is sectarian, offered to the Christian God, not a prayer to a non-denominational generic one-size-fits-most(-if-you-ignore-atheists) god.

I was delighted that The Sun recognized there was an issue worthy of front page coverage.

But I was also appalled that the people we trust to run local governments still apparently see nothing inappropriate about beginning government meetings with any type of prayer, let alone one to "Jesus."

Not only is sectarian prayer insensitive to their constituents who practice a non-Christian religion, but also to non-believers. Yes, Salisbury and Carroll County, you have *gasp* atheists living among you! (But heck, who cares about atheists and how they feel about...well...anything? I mean, atheists should just shut up and be grateful that they're allowed to live in Salisbury and Carroll County and stop persecuting Christians by complaining about prayers being offered at their government's meetings, right?)

But my most basic concern is that we have elected officials who believe things for which there is no evidence and ask for help and guidance from a magical, invisible sky-spirit based on ancient Middle-Eastern mythology. And they're damn proud of it. That's worrisome.

I want my government to be led by people who are critical thinkers, who make decisions based on evidence--and who are aware that, even if some prayers offered at public government meetings may be legal under court decisions, they are still always inappropriate. Always.

Praying for better test scores

According to a March 14 article in The Baltimore Sun, "Prayers at city school before tests criticized" by Erica L. Green, the principal of a Baltimore City public school used prayer to help prepare students for standardized testing. Because, you know, students' praying to God for help on tests has been a well-tested (heh) and highly successful strategy. The better you pray, the better the scores. Right?

Here's a copy of the flier that the school distributed:

According to The Sun, "Local officials said they will use the incident as an opportunity to emphasize to school leaders appropriate school-sponsored events." Which is good.

What is not good was the response of Jimmy Gittings, president of the city principals' union. 

According to The Sun, Gittings said:

"The only individuals I hold accountable for these injustices for Ms. Yon [the school principal] are the narrow-minded politicians from some 50 years ago, for removing prayer from our schools. Once prayer was removed from our schools, the respect for our teachers and administrators has been increasingly out of control."

The Sun added:

Gittings, a proponent of prayer in schools, said he fully supported Yon's actions. He said he was aware that it wasn't constitutional, but he still believed in the message.

So the head of Baltimore's principals' union not only believes in the power of prayer, but he also believes in public school-sanctioned prayer, and he doesn't believe in the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution. Nor apparently does he understand why school-sanctioned prayer is unconstitutional, or if he does, he doesn't care. And he thinks school prayer was removed by "narrow-minded politicians." Wonderful. Just the person we should want representing those in charge of educating our children.  

Facebook Follies: Keep God in the Founding Documents of the USA

In the current installment of Facebook Follies, which documents my Facebook encounters with superstition and woo, I present the Facebook "cause": Keep God in the Founding Documents of the United States of America which I was invited by a friend to join.

The founder of this Facebook cause says, "My mission is to bring to the attention of the government that we want to keep this holy name in our country and its founding documents." 

That mission statement puzzled me, since I don't remember any "holy name" in what I consider this country's founding documents. The closest I can recall is the use of the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence. And that seems to be pretty vague to be considered a "holy name," being that there have been many gods with many names credited with being creators.

And, doesn't one of our most important founding documents say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."? Was that part of the First Amendment to our Constitution repealed, and I failed to notice? And, if it hasn't been repealed, what is "the government" supposed to do--constitutionally--once this cause's mission is brought to its attention?

So I tried to find out more, to learn about these "founding documents" that mention a "holy name" and what "the government" is supposed to do about keeping that "holy name" in them--and in the country.

The "About" section of the cause's description says:  "If we don't ban together, God could be forever removed from the United States of America and we as a whole would risk losing everything our fore-fathers established this country for."

That only confused me more. We're supposed to unite to "ban" something to keep God in America? And if we don't, we will no longer have independence from England, and the United States government our forefathers established will go *poof*? Sounds ominous. And I don't understand why England gets us back. Isn't there a time limit on returns? And do they really want us back, and what happens if they don't?

Too many unanswered questions!

Bottom line: I didn't find the "about" information very helpful in explaining what "holy name" was in what "founding documents" and what "the government" was supposed to do about keeping that holy name in them. And I was still unclear who was going to remove God from America, and what authority they might have to do that. (It's not like he's an undocumented alien...or...is he?) 

The only other clues on the cause's Facebook page were:

• a close-up photo of a U.S. coin-- hardly a founding document--with "In God We Trust," a motto which can only be constitutional if it's secular and not religious; and,

• a statement that all donations go to the "American Center for Law and Justice." 

That called for a trip to the ACLJ website which says:

American Center for Law and Justice is a d/b/a for Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism, Inc., a tax-exempt, not-for-profit, religious corporation as defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights. 

A further look at the ACLJ site doesn't appear to explain who is going to remove what holy name from the U.S.'s "founding documents," how they'll do it, or what "the government" is supposed to do about it once this brazen act is brought to its attention. The closest match to the Facebook cause's cause was under the "Church/State issues" of concern to the ACLJ: National Motto; Patriotic Signs; Pledge of Allegiance; and Ten Commandments.

For the most part, ACLJ supports interjecting God--at least the Christian one--in government and keeping him there, and working to ensure that government provides a "Christian perspective." It also supports some other "Christian" causes including "border security" (God's apparent "for" it); "the war on terror" (for); and civilian trials for terrorist suspects (against); and offers its Christian perspective on political and judicial candidates (sometimes for, sometimes against, depending on how pro-Christ and Christian the candidate is.)

I will grant that a few of the causes supported by the ACLJ are unobjectionable, at least from a legal standpoint (but crazy from a rational one) such as support of the right of public school students to form extra-curricular Bible clubs.

But then there's "Christian"-based opposition to gay marriage, and support for banning abortions (i.e.--forced pregnancy continuation laws), abstinence only sex education, and school vouchers.

Not entirely surprisingly, the ACLJ supports teaching creationism in public school science classes as an alternative to evolution--with the understanding that legally, such teaching cannot "promote a religious purpose." So I guess that could/should amount to the teacher saying: "Now there are various crazy-assed creative mythologies which tried to explain how life developed..." and then giving examples from a variety of sources. But here's what evidence actually shows us...."

But the ACLJ's interest in course content goes beyond teaching Creationism as science: 

If your school introduces practices that appear related to the occult, such as visualizing conversations with dead historical figures, chanting a mantra-like slogan, practicing any form of meditation, and so on, then the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment works on your side. The Establishment Clause forbids the state from setting up one religion over and against other religions. Since these practices are religious and state-sponsored, they represent a violation of your rights.

So, apparently, no patriotic school plays about the U.S. founding fathers for Christian students since they'd need to imagine "conversations with dead historical figures"--perhaps talking to other dead historical figures. Eek! And chanting "Warthogs, warthogs, you're the best!" at school football games is arguable out too.

Suffice it to say that, being a godless, bleeding heart liberal, I will not be sending either financial, moral, or spiritual, prayerful support the ACLJ's way.

But I've digressed from the topic which started this post: stopping someone from ripping mention of a holy name, somehow, from the U.S. founding documents; deporting God from our country; and getting the government to do something about it. So back to it. 

Since my visit to the ACLJ web site didn't provide much enlightenment on who was doing what to what, and how, or which government was supposed to do what to what and how, I decided to ask the friend who asked me to join the cause for clarification. Because surely, she wouldn't support a cause she didn't fully understand, right?

I wrote to her: "I need more information before I can support your cause, and I can't find the answers on that cause's Facebook page. So, please, help me out. How many U.S. founding documents are at risk?! Which ones? What do they say about the holy name? Who is going to remove mention of the holy name from these documents and our country, what authority do they have to do that, and how will they do it?!! What government is supposed to do something about this removal, and what is it supposed to do about it?"

That message was sent several days ago, and I still haven't gotten a response. That's disappointing. I truly was anxiously awaiting an answer which I'm sure would have been enlightening for me.

And if you were wondering, surprisingly, she hasn't defriended me--yet.