continue to encourage the separation of church and state

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1:

The incident happened during a protest against the Church of Scientology on May 10. Demonstrators from the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous, who were outside the church’s £23m headquarters near St Paul’s cathedral, were banned by police from describing Scientology as a cult by police because it was “abusive and insulting”.

Writing on an anti-Scientology website, the teenager facing court said: “I brought a sign to the May 10th protest that said: ‘Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.’

”’Within five minutes of arriving I was told by a member of the police that I was not allowed to use that word, and that the final decision would be made by the inspector.”

A policewoman later read him section five of the Public Order Act and “strongly advised” him to remove the sign. The section prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.

The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a “cult” which was “corrupt, sinister and dangerous”.

[...]

Liberty director, Shami Chakrabarti, said: “This barmy prosecution makes a mockery of Britain’s free speech traditions.

“After criminalising the use of the word ‘cult’, perhaps the next step is to ban the words ‘war’ and ‘tax’ from peaceful demonstrations?”

Ian Haworth, from the Cult Information Centre which provides advice for victims of cults and their families, said: “This is an extraordinary situation. If it wasn’t so serious it would be farcical. The police’s job is to protect and serve. Who is being served and who is being protected in this situation? I find it very worrying.

“Scientology is well known to my organisation, and has been of great concern to me for 22 years. I get many calls from families with loved ones involved and ex-members who are in need of one form of help.”

Madeleine ?

... at least in my pathetic slave country.
Too many economic interests at stake here.

It doesn’t mean that I’m not fighting the fight anymore.

Explained to my sister that the phrase “Under God” was not in the Pledge of Allegiance as originally written.

I’m not American I’m Norwegian, but I have studied American history a little bit and there is one thing I’d like to remind my American friends.

Church and state has always been separate in USA. Thomas Jefferson was very concerned about separating the new democracy from three things: the millitary, business and the church. All three are good ideas, I think. But your biggest problem is not the separation of church and state. And the whole merry christmas debacle is only about symbols. I like to leave symbols to the symbol-minded.

USA was not founded on christian ideas. The constitution was not guided by divine inspiration. All the good stuff are in the amendments, which were put there reluctantly as concessions to get it past the will of the people. (And the constitution is regularly broken anyway.) Benjamin Franklin made a suggestion about starting all constitutional debates with a prayer of guidence, but Alexander Hamilton refused because he didn’t think they needed help from foreigners.

“God’s own country” is just a phrase. Not something that describes or helped form USA. You can wrap phrases like that around anything, but it does not make it truth. Even Hitler said “Gott mit uns”.

Keep state and church separate! It is good for democracy, and it is good for the church. And remember that the state is not the same as the democracy.

For more on this I recommend books by Professor Michael Parenti. He can also be found on mp3 on www.radio4all.net.

Finally, from my heart, God bless America.

Lesson #1
Terrorism = different opinions

A comedian made a joke yesterday during the big Rome Mayday concert (broadcasted on TV). He said (more or less): “The Pope doesn’t believe in evolutionism, nor do I: the Church infact hasn’t evolved”.
The Vatican press went ballistic today: “It is vile and terroristic to throw stones at the Pope”.
Coming from the same people who, a month ago, stated that allowing civil unions will escalate to allowing “pedophilia and incest”.

Please, somebody save this cursed country.

“They call it Creation science because it’s all made up.”

...this still bugs me.

It just seems so dumb and intrusive and… Just knock it off, people!

...the distance between church and state.

Just wanted to say it.

(Again?)

Apparently, the Park Service isn’t allowed to say, for fear of offending Christian fundamentalists.

This makes me want to throw up.

Should churches be prohibited from saying things that atheists find troubling or offensive? (Well, no, of course they shouldn’t be.)

People!

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=118716

Counter Intel
On Tuesday, the Rabbi Should Have Sued

BY JOSH FEIT

We put that pushy Jew in his place. The Christmas trees are back up at Sea-Tac. Hallelujah!

Honestly, the defensive reaction from the Anti-Defamation League (we’re sorry, we’re sorry, we didn’t mean for the Christmas trees to come down!); the initial mixed-up media reports (“a Jew threatens to sue the Port for displaying Christmas trees”); and most of all, the avalanche of anti-Jewish vitriol that piled up on KING 5’s website (“let’s stop exchanging gifts at Christmas and see if the Jewish-owned stores want GIFTING brought back!”), are all classic elements from the predictable, gross script of anti-Semitism. (And yes, yes, thank you Edward Said/Noam Chomsky, I know that “anti-Semitism” is an ill-fitting description for anti-Jewish sentiment because Palestinians are Semites, blah, blah, etc.)

Anyway, yes, predictable script: An even-keeled call from a Jew (over a month ago) for equal representation at the Port leads to an anti-Semitic outburst which forces Jews to back down and apologize.

Here’s another example of the brotherly Christmas spirit that was posted on KING 5’s website: “Why couldn’t the rabbi leave well enough alone… He is just another example of why Jewish people, and others, especially the ACLU (which is supported predominately by Jewish people), are looked upon as the leading proponents of asking a nation [of] Judeo-Christian values, to remove those values. Christians must accept everyone else’s values and symbols. You would think the world is coming to an end when minorities are asked to respect our values and symbols. The Sea-Tac management is spineless. They might prove me wrong by restoring the Christmas trees. I’m not holding my breath.”

“Leave well enough alone”? You mean shut up and go away? Okay, never mind that this creep doesn’t seem to realize that Judeo means Jewish, or that “everyone else’s values and symbols” aren’t prominently displayed in publicly funded institutions like the Port, or that in fact, the Port showed it did have a spine by putting the Jew back in his place, the real question is: Why didn’t the Port respond weeks ago and avoid this whole thing? Port spokesperson Terri-Ann Betencourt tells me Port staff had internal discussions about the Rabbi’s request for weeks, but they didn’t come up with a plan.

And you bet the Port initially took the trees down. Otherwise, they would have lost the lawsuit. By picking one religion over another, the Port was in all likelihood, breaking the law? And shouldn’t that be the point? Isn’t that important? To anybody?

And please. Presumptuous editorials like the one in December 12’s Seattle Times that said Christmas trees are simply “a symbol of winter, the holidays… for people of all faiths” totally miss—and unwittingly highlight—the whole point: A Christian holiday somehow defines winter for all of us? Um: (a) They’re called CHRISTmas trees. (b) Whose holidays? Chanukah is a minor Jewish holiday and is only propped up as equivalent to Christmas as a condescending way to include Jews in a Christian celebration that dominates America.

The rabbi should have gone ahead and sued.