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?

Snag in the gay agenda

If your gay agenda included the item "Get Married in Annapolis and use the Discover Annapolis Tours trolleys as transportation," you'll need to cross it off your list. At least the part about the trolleys. Matt Grubbs, owner of the trolley company, has decided to get out of his popular wedding service business. 

Grubbs' god apparently told him he isn't allowed to shuttle same-sex couples and their wedding guests on his trolleys. On the other hand, the State of Maryland told him back in 2001--long before it passed the law that will allow same-sex couples to marry beginning January 1, 2013--that he cannot legally discriminate in his business on the basis of sexual orientation. So Grubbs felt he had no choice but to go out of the wedding services business.

However, Grubbs is now pushing for a change in the law that would allow wedding related businesses to discriminate against--same-sex married couples? same sex couples whether they're married or not? anyone based on their sexual orientation?--if their bigotry is grounded in their personal religious convictions.

But whether or not the current law is amended to allow discrimination, same-sex couples marrying in Annapolis will need to find a mode of transportation other than a trolley. At least until a trolley service run by someone whose god (or lack thereof) allows the business to transport same-sex couples fills the void.

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."

Civil rights in short supply; gays haven't suffered enough violence for a full share

This week the Maryland General Assembly approved the Civil Marriage Protection Act which allows same-sex couples to marry, much to the distress of Emmett C. Burns, Jr., a member of the House of Delegates and Baptist minister. Burns knows, as Maryland legislators who voted in favor of the bill do not, that civil rights are in short supply and must be allocated to only the most civil rights-worthy minorities. According to Burns, gays and lesbians simply don't qualify for full civil rights since none have suffered the amount of violence blacks have.

Burns asked, "Blacks were hung, firebombed. They were shot. Where are the whites who were shot because of their sexuality?"

It is unclear from Burns' comments why the many documented cases of gays and other sexual minorities being murdered because of their sexual orientation, including the murder of Glen H. Footman in Baltimore, don't qualify as points towards full equality for same-sex couples. (Note: Although generally not clear from the reporting, as Burns points out, all the individuals who are members of the GLBT community are "whites.")

While there are many scales for measuring the relative suffering of various minorities to determine if they qualify for martial equality and other civil rights, it appears that Burns may be using "The Bible Says Gay Sex is a Big Sin" (TBSGSBS) scale which requires all evidence of violence against gays to be excluded from the computation of civil rights eligibility. Use of this scale probably means that even additional murders of gays will not increase their civil rights eligibility score.

Rapists will start disguising themselves as women if transgendered protected

The biggest concern about Baltimore County's proposed bill to protect individuals who are transgendered from discrimination based on gender identity seems to be the fear that if transgendered people are protected, men will start dressing as women, then enter women's public restrooms for the purpose of peeping at or raping women.

Apparently, the bill will provide, for the very first time, instruction for men on how to disguise themselves as women so they can enter women's bathrooms without notice, since obviously no man could possibly know how to do that now.

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.

Not-a-diagnostician David Geier kicked off Maryland Commission on Autism

According to an article in The Baltimore Sun, the proponent of a dangerous and untested treatment for children with autism, David Geier, who was on the Maryland Commission on Autism as a "diagnostician," even though he has no education or training that would qualify him to diagnose anyone with anything, was removed from the Commission by Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley.

David Geier was recently charged with practicing medicine without a license.

O'Malley's action came after Geier refused to resign despite a statement from Geier though his attorney that he only worked as an "administrator" in the clinics headed by his father, Dr. Mark Geier, whose license to practice medicine was recently suspended by the Maryland Board of Physicians. Neither David Geier nor his attorney explained how an "administrator" was qualified to serve in the capacity of "diagnostician" on the Commission.

The question remains: how did David Geier ever get to be appointed to the Commission as a "diagnostician" in the first place? And why was there was no public outcry from qualified Commission members about his appointment?

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.

Not-a-doctor David Geier charged with practicing medicine without a license

Well, finally.

The Baltimore Sun reports that the Maryland Board of Physicians has charged not-a-doctor, not-a-diagnostician David Geier with practicing medicine without a license.

He is the son and business associate of Mark Geier, the physician whose license to practice medicine was recently suspended by the same Maryland board on an emergency basis based on charges that he endangered the lives of children with autism by treating them with dangerous treatments based on junk science, and by diagnosing some children with "precocious puberty," even though the children did not meet the medical criteria for that diagnosis.

Given that at least one of the complaints against David Geier dates back to 2008, what in the world took the Maryland Board of Physicians so long to act? Is this the expedient way Maryland should be acting to protect patients, especially children?

When is someone who can't diagnose a "diagnostician"?

When is someone who isn't qualified to diagnose autism--or anything else as far as I can tell--a "diagnostician"? And how does that not-qualified-to-diagnose-ician get appointed to the Maryland Commission on Autism as a diagnostician? Especially if that someone promotes dangerous treatments for children with autism, based on junk science? 

One of the side-stories to develop out of The Maryland Board of Physicians suspending the medical license of Dr. Mark Geier is that his son, David Geier, who has a B.A. in biology, and is not a doctor or any other type of professional qualified to diagnose autism, or indeed, any medical condition, is on the Maryland Commission on Autism as its legally required "diagnostician" member.

According to The Baltimore Sun's article about David Geier's position on the Commission, the statute that created the commission did not definite "diagnostician" and the legal definition is "broad." It's not clear from the article who made the claim that the legal definition is "broad," or how broad "broad" legally is, but one can't help but wonder how useful any definition of "diagnostician" is, if it includes someone who is not licensed, nor otherwise qualified, to diagnose anything or anyone.

Maryland State Board of Physicians finally acts against autism non-expert Geier

The Maryland Board of Physicians has finally taken action against Dr. Mark Geier, the Maryland physician who marketed himself as an "autism expert," even though he had no credentials that would qualify him as such, and who treated children with unstudied and potentially dangerous therapies. The Board's order suspended Geier's license to practice medicine in Maryland.

According to an article in today's Baltimore Sun, Geier's lawyer, Joseph A. Schwartz III, is quoted as saying: "If you read the [order], you say, 'Holy God, this is awful.' But if it were so awful, they should have an injured child, and they don't."

Really? That's the legal standard? Doctors can treat children with untested and potentially dangerous therapies based on junk science, misdiagnose them, experiment upon them, and fail to secure the informed consent from the children's parents, but you can't take emergency action against that doctor until you actually have "an injured child"?

While Schwarz claims Geier is not "an immediate threat to patients," in my opinion, he's been a threat to patients since the day he started treating children with autism with treatment protocols that included Lupon and chelation. Given that Geier began his controversial treatments more than five years ago, and his alleged autism treatments were hardly a secret (also see here), why did it take the Board of Physicians so long to stop Geier?

Since Geier's son, David, who is not a doctor, and claims no medical training, allegedly examined and diagnosed at least one patient according to the Board of Physicians' order against Mark Geier, can we also hope to finally see some action taken against him in the near future?

#Marryland: I support marriage equality

It seems to me as though the argument of many of the opponents of the Maryland Marriage Equality bill boils down to: "My god doesn't like it."

I am baffled that your god seems so obsessed with who is doing what, with what body parts, and with whom--especially since he was in charge of designing all those body parts in the first place, right?

Certainly, if your god had wanted to limit human sexual activity to only male-female vaginal intercourse--and then only among married people--he had the power to make that happen. Surely he knew how to design sexual attraction and sex organs (you know, the "naughty bits" you--and he--are so concerned about) so humans would never be attracted to someone of the same sex, and would bond to their single mate for life.

And look at all the wonderful variations in sex organs and mating he managed to design for the other critters he made! A veritable plethora of options! Clearly, he wasn't particularly attached to one design. Some of those other animals' sex organs are designed so sexual activity can occur in one way and one way only. I can't understand, then, why your god chose the human design that he did, so that there are so many creative ways to put all our body parts to such delightful use.

Oh, I see! He created humans in his own likeness. That explains it. So, does your god have a penis or a vagina? Or maybe both? Clitoris or not? Testicles? And, if so, what does he use them for?

And he explained the proper use of sex organs in his special book--the one book that condoned slavery, rape, and infanticide. Well, I can see why that settles the whole same-sex marriage debate.

Yes, I am baffled by so much of what your god does--or doesn't do.

Which is one of the reasons why he's your god, not mine.

Chain emails: In God We Trust (Not Really)

Let's start with the premise that, with extremely rare exceptions, anyone who sends out chain emails is clueless (and those rare exceptions are usually folks who are just plain evil). I mean, who really "thinks" and comes to the conclusion that "everyone in my email address book would love to get this!"?

Now, sometimes, I admit, the people who send out chain emails are only following instructions. You know, the instructions that say: "Send this to everyone you know!!!!" 

So they do. Without ever checking first to see if what they're being asked to forward to everyone is true, accurate, or up-to-date. (I know googling must be hard for these people, since they never hesitate hitting the "Forward" button in the name of caution.) Or without considering whether the content of the email might be offensive to any of the recipients (it goes without saying that the email will be annoying to most (all?) of the recipients.)

I don't remember the last time I received a chain email that wasn't a hoax, a lie, a prayer or other religious message, medical woo--or most terrible of all--filled with a disturbingly large number of photos of incredibly cute kittens and puppies and ducklings and hamsters wearing tiny clothes, and unicorns, and pretty glittery flowers, or gifs featuring kittens and puppies and hamsters wearing tiny clothes and unicorns and pretty glittery flowers. With music. *shudder*

Among my recent examples, this rant:

----Forwarded Message----

From: Clueless Friend
Sent: Recently
Subject: Fw: It has begun...Refuse new coins!

It has begun...Refuse new coins!

True Americans will refuse these!

REFUSE NEW ONE DOLLAR COINS
This simple action will make a strong statement.  

Please help do this.. Refuse to accept these when they are handed to you.  

I received one from the Post Office as change and I asked for a dollar bill instead.  
The lady just smiled and said 'way to go' , so she had read this e -mail.  

Please help out..our world is in enough trouble without this too!!!!!

U.S. Government to Release New Dollar Coins

You guessed it

 'IN GOD WE TRUST'
                      IS GONE!!!
                     
                    If ever there was a reason to boycott something,
                    THIS IS IT!!!!

                    DO NOT ACCEPT THE NEW DOLLAR COINS AS CHANGE

                    Together we can force them out of circulation..

      Please

send

to all

on 
your

mailing

list!!!

(Typically kooky formatting from the original, just wish I could put the "Please send to all on your mailing list!!!" in the size 72-gazillion font from the email. It was very impressive. No wonder Abbie did just that without research--or apparently thinking.)

So, anyway, my friend Abbie, a habitual chain email forwarder, after receiving the email (from someone who had received it from someone, who had received it from someone...well, the email had clearly been forwarded many times, because none of the forwarders--clueless all--know how to send out blind emails or edit them, as evidenced by the fact that the email Abbie forwarded to me contained several repeats of the message (and really, once was bad enough), once for each mailing list to whom this vital, urgent message had been forwarded, along with the email addresses of umpteen dozens of people I don't know), did exactly as instructed, and sent that email to everyone on her email list, me included, without checking to find out that--wait for it--the email is a lie mistake. 

A Google check, which took a prodigious amount of time--something like 10 seconds--would have brought up, in the #3 spot, a link to snopes.com. Clicking on that link--perhaps as long as another second--takes you to a page that says 

Claim: New dollar coins were designed with the motto "In God We Trust" omitted.

FALSE

And then, on the same page, there's sample email with the false claim which says in part:

Who originally put 'In God We Trust" onto our currency?

My bet is it was one of the Presidents on these coins.

Get that? The writer can't be bothered to do research, but instead, "guesses" and guesses wrong. (Surprised? Me neither, either that the writer just "guessed" rather than doing actual research 'cause that's really hard, or that the guess was wrong.)

Here are the facts, not my guess:

The American Numismatic Association says:

The motto “In God We Trust“ was first placed on U.S. coinage in 1864. An era of high religious sentiment surfaced during the Civil War. Many citizens desired that their religious beliefs be reflected on the nation’s currency. The two-cent piece was the first coin to bear the motto.

So the motto "In God We Trust" began with the religious pushing their own agenda. I am shocked! Staggeringly, stupefyingly shocked!

And the U.S. Mint (on its kids pages, so it's not real challenging to comprehend) lists this "Fun Fact" #22:

"In God We Trust" was first used on coins during the Civil War. This inscription was added to the two-cent piece of 1864. But it didn't become necessary to add it to all coins until 1955. The inscription "E Pluribus Unum," which means "One from Many" (as in one country made from many states) was first used on the gold $5 piece of 1795. 

And helpfully, for those whose reading abilities are shaky, Snopes provides a photo of the edge of the coin, clearly (and unfortunately) showing the words "In God We Trust":

As does the U.S. Mint.

And there's this information on the Mint's "Presidential $1 Coins" page:

In 2009 "In God We Trust" was moved from the edge to the face of the coin.

So, Abbie forward this email that contained false information, and the asinine assertion that "True Americans will refuse these" to me. 

Even though I've repeatedly asked her not to send me chain emails.

Even though I've repeatedly strongly suggested to her that she check out the facts contained in the chain emails that she sends to everyone on her mailing list.

Even though she knows that I'm an atheist.

Even though she knows that I'm politically liberal.

Do I think Abbie sent this to try to change my political and (non)religious views? Do I think Abbie sent this because she's trying to bait me, annoy me, or hurt me? Do I think that Abbie really thinks that I'm not a "true American" since she must know that I not only would accept the coin (despite the fact that I'd rather carry paper money, cashiers glare at me when I hand them one, and their only utility seems to be for use in the parking machines in downtown Baltimore), but also don't think the words "In God We Trust" belong on the coins in the first place?

No, I don't. Abbie is one of the nicest women I've ever known, and would never try to provoke or hurt anyone. Deliberately. But she does that so often when she sends out chain emails because...she's clueless.

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.