Federal Judge says Hateful Religous Extremists have Rights

if they happen to be Hateful Christian Extremists, that is.

Washington (CNN) -- Missouri's tight restrictions on protests and picketing outside military funerals were tossed out by a federal judge Monday, over free speech concerns.

A small Kansas church had brought suit over its claimed right to loudly march outside the burials and memorial services of those killed in overseas conflicts. The state legislature had passed a law to keep members of the Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church from demonstrating within 300 feet of such private services.

But that doesn't mean that other "Extremists" are going to take this lying down...



While both Democratic leaders (Harry Reid) and Republicans (Pat Buchannan vs Newt Gingrich's Hate Speech) are turning themselves into pretzels of the Mosque that's not a Mosque, in the area that's not Ground Zero - we've been having a set of Bigoted Christian Supremacists running around the country and protesting at the funerals of our troops in order to express their opinion of God's "Diapproval" of Teh Ghey.

It's literally like Leviticus vs John.

Religious Literalists from Westboro want to take the "Abomination of a man lying with a man" to it's ultimate conclusion - but I have this question for them, what about the "abomination" of children talking back to their elders?

Do they deserve to be put to death?

What about the Bible's support for Slavery? What about the prohibition from planting different crops in the same field or wearing cloth of two different types?



What about the fact that Moses under Levitican law allowed people to become divorced, but Jesus overrode him in Matthew 19:

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Jesus argued that Marriage - under God - is for life and that anyone who tried to divorce and marry another, was committing adultery. So should they be put to death, harrassed, shamed? No. Not according to John 8:

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

The Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church do have a "Right" to protest for their version of the Bible, just as much as others have a right to argue that they've gotten it completely wrong, that Jesus repeatedly overrode and updated Moses Levitican laws. They're like Constitutional Originalists who refuse to acknowledge the 13th Amendment or 14th Amendment.

Or people who say that those Co-exist stickers are "Giving our Country Away".



Florida House Tea Party Candidate Alan West:

– “We already have a 5th column that is already infiltrating into our colleges, into our universities, into our high schools, into our religious aspect, our cultural aspect, our financial, our political systems in this country. And that enemy represents something called Islam and Islam is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology, it is not a religion. It has not been a religion since 622 AD, and we need to have individuals that stand up and say that.”

To People who say that Islam isn't a Religion, would you say that to Muhammad Ali? Would you say it to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? Islam has been a part of the fabric of America since it's founding, since the Treaty of Tripoli where President John Adams stated:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Just as our Current President did say....

Obama: This is America, and our commitment to Religious Freedom must be unshakable.

And didn't walk back when he later said this...

Obama: My intention was to simply let people know what I thought... In this country we treat everyone equally, . I was not commenting, and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decisions to put a mosque there, I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding. As difficult as some of these issues are, (we should) stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about.

In both cases, the President was absolutely correct. Just as the Judge who approved the Westboro protests was correct. In this country we have the Right of Religious Freedom and Expression, the Right to Public Assembly and the Right to Petition our Government.

We have that Right even if what we have to say, and that which we worship is essentially vile and despicable to others. Westboro has that Right, but so does the Park 51 Community Complex.

Fortunately though, we also have the right - to protest the protesters. To call out their Hate and replace it with knowledge, understanding, compassion and outreach just as Jesus replaced the isolationist and openly xenophobic views of Moses, with Love, Forgiveness and Repentance.

It is so interesting to me that so many so called "Christians" don't seem to know the very first thing about Christ - or their own Country.

Vyan

Prop 8; Gender Terrorism Redux

We fell down on this one people, preoccupied with our own lives, the cost of gas the stock market meltdown, and the Presidential Race - we let this one get away from us.


Some months ago the California Supreme Court Ruled the right to love and marry the person of your choice, and have that love returned regardless of their gender was a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT under the California Constitution.


The California Constitution contains an Equal Protection Clause modelled directly on the U.S. Constitutions 14th Amendment. This is the amendment that promises "all persons within the jurisidiction of the states - the Equal Protection of the Law" It was implemented in 1865 following the end of the Civil War and also erased other Constitutional mistakes such as the "3/5th of a person" clause which led to the Dred Scott decision, where the Taney Court Ruled that the (Original) Constitution did not apply to Black people.


In 1896 the Supreme Court decided the re-define the 14th Amendment to allow for "Seperate But Equal" accomodations between the races (starting from a situation involved segregated portions of a train, and a black man who protested being taken out his seat and moved to the "Black section")

The court said this...

..If he be a white man and assigned to a colored coach, he may have his action for damages against the company for being deprived of his so called property.
Upon the other hand, if he be a colored man and be so assigned, he has been deprived of no property, since he is not lawfully entitled to the reputation of being a white man.....

A black man wasn't entitled to something a whtie man had - simply because he's not a whtie man.


Last Tuesday California Repeated Plessy and said that Gay people aren't entitled to what Straight People have - the right to love and marry.
We've turned the clock back over 100 years. Good job people, way to move "forward.
"

The 14th doesn't say the only straight people will have equal protection - it say s ALL People.. Gay people are still people right?

Plessy wasn't fixed until Brown V Board of Education - over 50 YEARS LATER.


On the basic issue of what is Right and what is Wrong - Prop 8 was a tragic mistake, and like Plessy it will not stand.


But we have other issues to address in the meanwhile, such as why did this happen? It is hate? Is it Fear? Is it Righteousness?

Many devout people feel that homosexual is nothing more than a "sinful lifestyle choice".
They point to Leviticus 18:22

..You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
..

Under Levitcus and "Abomination" is punishable by death. But it doesn't stop there as the West Wing Character President Jed Bartlett pointed out in the very first episode of that series.

..Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.
["When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.
](small chuckles from the guests) She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, and
always clears the table when it was her turn.
What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath, Exodus 35:2, clearly says he should be put to death [Six days shall work be done,but on the seventh day you shall have a holy sabbath of solemn rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death] Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important, 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes us unclean, Leviticus 11:7.
[And the swine, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.
] If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?..

Leviticus says the a child who talks back to his parents has commited - you guessed it - an ABOMINATION.
Should that child be put to death?

But here's the rub - the Bible in John Chapter 8 also says this:

.. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.
10 Jesus looked up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again." 12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." 13 The Pharisees then said to him, "You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not true." 14 Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I know whence I have come and whither I am going, but you do not know whence I come or whither I am going.
15 You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one.

..

Jesus ministered to the sick and to the criminal. If being a homosexual *Is* a sin and crime, Jesus would have been the first to offer out his hand in friendship.


Where doesn't that leave those who claim to be following along Jesus' path?

Do you condemn or do you forgive? Do we tear people down, or do we build them up?

Here's another point, people who argue that being gay is a "choice" feel that the 14th Amendment shouldn't apply simply because it isn't a racial or gender issue. You can't choose or change your race (unless you're Michael Jackson) so the protections in place for these people under equal protection shouldn't apply to gay people.
Besides the fact that the California Supreme Court ruled in exactly the opposite way, the larger point is this -- isn't being a catholic vs being a protestant, or a episcopalian or jewish or muslim or buddhist a choice? Isn't that choice clearly and obviously protected by both the 1st *and* the 14th Amendment? (All Persons Right?)

And how about this, what if it isn't entirely a choice at all?

Last year 60 Minutes did a special investigating the causes of homosexuality and found that science has found that it appears not to be "taught" (so we don't need to worry about what people are telling our children in school - little Johnnie isn't gonna come home in a dress and LIKE IT just because someone "double dog dared him"!!) but it isn't neccesarily genetic either. As of the time of this report, hormonal differences, stemming from varying levels in the womb of the mother seem to be the best source and have been replicated in laboratory settings - even two genetically identical twin brothers were interviewed. One was straight, one was Gay - and it wasn't something he "learned", it was just who he was and had been since birth.


http://60minutes. yahoo. com/segment/68/gay_or_straight

So with that in mind, what the heck did California - and several other states - actually *DO* this past Tuesday?

I think it was a Hate Crime. I think it was a not so subtle form of intimidation and yes - emotional terrorism.
But then that's just me- or is it?

Vyan

O'Reilly and the Hard Right's Naked Intolerance

Just last month Bill O'Reilly was livid that he had come under fire over his Sylvia's comments. He claimed he ment no disrespect when he said "No one was asking for their M-Fing Ice Tea." He claimed his comments were misquoted and taken out of context by the "far left" who simply wanted to smear him.

In fairness to O'Reilly when you do take all of his and Juan William's comments in context one could argue that he wasn't saying what many claimed he was saying. He wasn't surprised by Sylvia's, he was praising it. But underneath even that view is the truth that what he was saying is that the problem with Black America - is that it isn't just like White America

Y'see Black Americans just haven't been perfected yet, that's all.

But in his more recent statements specifically endorsing intolerance toward gays, O'Reilly can no longer claim to have been misquoted or taken out of context.

His own words are damnation enough.

For O'Reilly, Sylvia's should be lauded because it's an example of "Good Black's" who behave "the same as (white) people in any other restaurant." and aren't culturally "dominated by Twista, Ludacris, and Snoop Dogg." Yay, for them. What a revelation that is for "some people", somewhere...

But not O'Reilly. He claims he knew this was "possible" all along and was simply happy to share this information with his audience - which I suppose he felt couldn't conceive of such a thing.

But when responding to the revelation by Harry Potter Author J.K. Rowling that one of his her lead characters, Albus Dumbledore is gay old Billo displayed something completely different.

Video from MediaMatters.

From The Fact with guest Dennis Miller"

O’REILLY: Here’s — you can talk about this on your radio show tomorrow. There are millions of Americans who feel that the media and the educational system is trying to indoctrinate their children to a certain way of life, and that includes parity for homosexuals with heterosexuals.

And that’s what this Rowling thing is all about, because she sells so many books. So many kids read it, that she comes out and says, “Oh, Dumbledore is gay, and that’s great.” And this — it’s another in the indoctrination thing. That’s what the belief system is among some Americans.

MILLER: I’ll be honest with you. I don’t think you can indoctrinate a kid into being gay. You might indoctrinate him into trying it once and him going, “I guess I’m not gay.”

[crosstalk]

O’REILLY: No, but tolerance. It’s — you know, he’s not going to be gay, but it’s tolerance of it.

It's not the problem that this character is gay (and this wasn't even mentioned or discussed in any of the books), it's the idea that this might promote the Tolerance of people who are gay simply because Dumbledore is a highy respected and admired character.

The view is that Homosexuals should not be on parity with Heterosexuals. Our children are being indoctrinated into this idea.

Pardon me but I thought that particular form of indoctrination began with All Men are Created Equal and are endowed by their creator with certain Inalienable Rights - which included Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I may be a bit old fashioned but I tend to think that explicitly endorsing intolerace tends to impede someones Liberty, their Pursuit of Happiness and sometimes their Life.

Now Dumbledore is admittedly just a fictional character and nothing to really get up in arms about - but this type of view as expressed by O'Reilly isn't rare. Just last week he stated he would do if he were to witness any gay (or someone in drag) attempting to accept communion.

TalkPoints Memo October 12th.

O'Reilly: Two Gay Militants in bizarre dress took communion in a effort to demean the proceedings.

During a later segment on this subject O'Reilly claimed that if he had been a witness to this proceeding he would have staged an "Intervention".

O'Reilly: I'd be like Jesus with the money changers - you understand what I'm saying?

Two years ago a similar situation occured in Minnesota, only the parishioners in that case weren't gay, they were simply showing their solidarity with gays as oppressed people.

A Minnesota priest “denied communion to more than 100 people Sunday, saying they could not receive the sacrament because they wore rainbow-colored sashes to church to show support for gay Catholics...Ann McComas-Bussa did not wear a sash, but she and her husband and three children all wore rainbow-colored ribbons and were denied communion. ‘As a Catholic, I just need to stand in solidarity with those that are being oppressed,’ she said...Last year, some conservative groups in St. Paul kneeled in church aisles to block sash-wearers from receiving communion.”

Catholics being not only "tolerant" of gays, but standing in solidarity with them? I'll bet if Big Bad Bill had been on hand, there would have been a Beatdown!!

"Don't Tase Me Bro!!"

WWJP: Who would Jesus Pummel?

O'Reilly on Gay Pride at a Padre's game, because we really can't afford to have our kids exposed to The Ghey Tolerance!. It might make them flinch during the ritual beatings.



All kidding aside endorsing the idea of gay intolerance is no joking matter, it's dangerous according to the 2005 FBI Hate Crime Stats.

Sexual-Orientation Bias
In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual- orientation bias.

* 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual.
* 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual.
* 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual.
* 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual.
* 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual

By comparison, heterosexuals have very little to fear physically from gays - yet people like BillO feel little impedements to literally threatening the health and safety of Gays and/or Gay supporters.

Many on the Hard Right like to argue that being Gay is merely a choice (although this seems to fly directly in the face of The Science - that hasn't stopped them before has it?), and since it's a "Choice" they are under no obligation to be respectful of a choice they disagree with. But here's a newsflash - being Religious is a Choice Too. Religious Intolerance, because it has shown to be detrimental to people's life and health, is prohibited in this country by law and under the 14th Amendment which states...

All Persons within the Jurisidiction of the State, will be granted the equal protection of the Laws

Clearly, Gay people are in far greater need of protection than heterosexuals - but still the Bush Administration has threatened to Veto Hate Crimes legislation that would protect gay people from abuse and intolerance.

The White House has even helped draft exceptions in the latest version of the ENDA which allow Religious Organizations, Small Business and the Military to effectively discriminate against gays at will.

Could you imagine if the Voting Rights Act had an exception in it for any elections which used a church as a polling place? Could have imagine if the Diners which used to be for "Whites Only" in the 50's and 60's would have had an exception to the Public Accomodations Act on the basis that they were a "Small Business?"

The law would literally be meaningless, just as the 14th Amendment had been for nearly 100 years.

It's long past time that we put a stop to this. We have to realize that endorsing Tolerance does not mean that you agree with someone elses choice. You don't have to agree, but even assuming that it is "merely" a choice, frankly if it's not your CHOICE you have no dog in the hunt. "Live and Let Live", isn't that what Jesus preached?

Just as Religious people can worship at the altar of their preference, and are granted protection to do so, GBLT people deserve - no need - to be granted the same protections.

It's the Christian and Human thing to do.

Vyan