Special privileges for Muslims

It seems that wherever and whenever Muslim presence in a country/community gets to a certain density, they push for special privileges based upon their religion.

This has been true in France, the United Kingdom, Sweden and other countries, and we are seeing the same thing happen in the United States.

Case in point: Portland, Maine. "Maine's courts and the Cumberland County Jail are modifying their rules regarding head coverings in order to accommodate the practices of Muslims and people of other faiths." [What other faiths? Sikhs? Orthodox Jews? People who worship cows, known as the Faith of our Farmers?]

"Under the new policy, defendants, inmates and visitors will no longer be required to remove scarves or other head coverings that are required by religious custom. ...

"Since 2005, the jail has detained 538 declared Muslims who were arrested locally or held for federal authorities."


This is, quite frankly, bullshit. Since when does the religious law of one group of people trump the laws of our nation and communities? What if a member of a religion that required someone to carry a knife in a turban is arrested? Or what about those religions that require males to wear a sock on their cock? Or those religions that stuff grass up their ass?

Let's carry it further. Let's say one of these Muslims interprets the Qur'an as instructing him to beat his wife with a stick. He's arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. Shall we dismiss the case because assaulting his wife is part of his religious custom?


With a growing Muslim presence in many of our communities, this issue is not going to go away. Nor is it going to be solved by kowtowing to the demands of the Imams. They have proved over and over again that if you give an inch they'll take a mile and then want more!

The laws of our communities must apply equally to all people. They must not be changed to grant special privilege or accommodate the religious sensibilities of particular minorities. Discrimination is one thing; special privilege is another.

Muslims who demand special privileges relative to our educational system (and they do!) or legal system, should be denied.

This is a secular country and there is no establishment of religion.

If they don't like it, there's always Saudi Arabia.

h/t to God is for Suckers

Religion in the White House

Why do we need any faith-based nonsense in the government?

We don't. In fact, because the entire faith-based operation involves the transfer of public money to religious institutions, it would seem that such an operation is in clear violation of our Constitution! No taxpayer dollars should go to any religious institution for any reason!

Unfortunately, President Obama doesn't seem to agree with me. Thus, he has moved to reshape and increase the size scope of a governmental faith-based structure.

According to Liliana Segura at AlterNet, Obama issued "an executive order that, rather than doing anything to dismantle Bush's faith-based initiatives, bolstered them with a new 'advisory council on faith.'"

But it gets worse. According to a U.S. News and World Report article, "(Obama's) public rallies are opening with invocations that have been commissioned and vetted by the White House." Prayers "commission and vetted by the White House"? Please say it ain't so!

This is, as they say, "unprecedented."


With regard to the faith-based business, Obama has created an Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. He did this via an executive order. The Council is to "be composed of not more than 25 members appointed by the president from among individuals who are not officers or employees of the federal government."

John DuBois, a 26-year old former Pentecostal pastor is heading up the faith-based office.

Not good. "However well-intentioned it sounded, the American Civil Liberties Union was quick to voice its alarm over the president's order, pointing out that the mission of the religious advisory council will also be 'to advise the president and the White House faith-based office on how to distribute federal dollars, and also advise on a range of other issues, such as AIDS and women's reproductive health care' -- areas where religious views present nothing if not a conflict of interest."


Mr. Obama needs to rethink all of this. First of all, it is unnecessary. If religious groups want to do good work in the community, that's fine. But they can do it with their own funds, not with taxpayer money.

I shall repeat myself: To give federal monies to religious groups for any purpose is in direct violation of the Constitution.

Give it up, President Obama!


Ms. Segura has much more to say about this issue and you can read her entire article here.

Another interesting article here (which is where I found the photo above showing then Senator Obama's interest in faith-based work).

Bibles for Politcos in Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania State Assembly recently purchased "220 Bibles and other holy books for legislators as they took the oath of office last month."

Members of the House got to select their Bibles from more than a dozen choices. Prices ranged from $30 to $90 each!

In addition, legislators who desired to have their names embossed on their Bibles could do so. That cost an extra $15 per, of course.

The total tab for this nonsense came to about $13,700!


Will someone please explain why in hell the taxpayers of the State of Pennsylvania are paying for Christian Bibles to be given to their state legislators? Is this not in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution?

If these Pennsylvania lawmakers are so pious they must have a Bible with them when they do their legislative duty, let them buy their own damn Bible! It is, of course, oxymoronic to speak of lawmakers and piety in the same sentence.


It isn't the money. The amount of money is a drop in Pennsylvania's budget. It's the principle of the thing.

I'd like to know who came up with this deranged idea.

And we should also recognize the moral strength of the seven (out of 203) legislators who refused this exercise in public religiosity.

h/t to the Friendly Atheist

Faith-based disappointment

Even as I knew there would be issues on which I and other progressives would disagree with President Obama, I really didn't think that disagreement would revolve around doling out tax money to faith-based groups.

While I think his heart is in the right place, I also think that creating a White House "faith" office is a mistake.

Obama believes that faith-based organizations working in their communities are a precious resource. At the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday, he said "People trust them. Communities rely on them. And we will help them."

And Obama's faith-based czar, Joshua DuBois, said "The government can't do everything. We have to work with the groups that are in the communities."



According to a McClatchy article, Obama's aides "stressed that he wouldn't allow government money to be used in programs that preach one religion or that refuse to hire people who don't share their religion.

That, however, is precisely where the rubber hits the road. Again, from McClatchy: "...Obama left in place five executive orders signed by Bush that allow the groups receiving government funds to proselytize or refuse to hire non-believers. One, signed on Dec. 12, 2002, specifically decreed that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech meant that any group should be able to receive federal taxpayer money 'without impairing their independence, autonomy, expression or religious character.'"

In other words, what Obama's aides said is not true.


Obama learned first-hand that some religiously-based community groups can do good work on behalf of the communities in which they exist. No argument there.

Problems remain, however. First of all, it is certainly questionable whether or not the federal government should use your tax dollars and mine to fund the work of a religious institution. The determining factor is not whether they do good work; it is whether we should abide by the Constitution of the land which forbids the recognition of any religion.

Furthermore, religious institutions are voluntary organizations and are funded by the contibutions or tithes of their members. If they wish to engage in activity that is social in nature and beneficial to the community, more power to them, but it isn't the responsibility of the government to pay for these "sincere" efforts. Religious institutions, no matter how worthy their cause, are not to be adjuncts of the United States government!

Finally, it is the case that the great majority of religious organizations that received federal monies under the Bush administration were of the Christian fundamentalist persuasion. It is also the case that many of these religious organizations that engage in "service" to the community do so under false pretenses. There is not one single, fundamentalist/evangelical organization that operates on a purely social basis. Not one. These groups all are evangelistic in nature and exclusionary in fact. The purpose of their existence is to bring people to a "born again" relationship with Jesus Christ. Everything flows from that. Secondly, most of them require that their employees be born again believers; they are exclusionary.

How Obama is going to deal with that problem is unclear, if he plans to tackle it at all.


My proposal would be to dump the faith-based office. It is nothing more than the wet-dream of fundamentalist/evangelical Christians to siphon money from the government teat anyway.

Let's put our money into secular organizations that exist for the purpose of giving aid and comfort to the physical and mental needs of our under-classes. The churches and their related organizations can provide soul soap and other spiritual necessities, paid for by their members.

The entire McClatchy article is here.


In the video below, Keith Olbermann visits the issue in July 2008, as it arose on the campaign trail. What he said then remains operative today.