Kruse control? It's still theocratic bondage, so oppose Indiana SB 131.

The column's title is "Proposed Indiana Senate bill would force religion on schools."

It's from January of 2019, not 2020, but when it comes to chuckleheaded theocrat Dennis Kruse, every legislative session is the right time to meld church with state.

Another legislative cycle in Indiana, another brazen attempt at forcing Christianity into the public education system. No surprise there.

Indiana Senate Bill 373 was authored by state Sens. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, and Jeff Raatz, R-Richmond. Its provisions aim to bring a little more Christianity into Indiana’s public and charter schools.

The bill would allow school corporations to “require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science.”

The use of the term “creation science” signifies something important. The bill does not simply aim to make students aware that different religions tell various stories about the creation of life. It aims to teach about creationism as if it is science.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation has issued an alert, because now it's a different year, with another legislative cycle ... and the very same repetitive shenanigans from Kruse, who I would refer to as a Tinpot Ayatollah if I thought he was capable of understanding either word.

Where does Hoosierland get these these bad actors, anyway?

---

URGENT: Please resist “In God We Trust” in schools bill!

The Indiana Legislature is fast-tracking a bill that would require public schools in the state to display “In God We Trust” in every classroom and library. We need your help to ensure that young, impressionable students aren’t subject to religious proselytization.

SB 131 is part of the nationwide legislative push, Project Blitz. Project Blitz seeks to inject state legislatures with a whole host of religious bills, imposing the theocratic version of a powerful few on We The People. It is an unvarnished attack on American secularism and civil liberties — those things we cherish most about our democracy, and now must tirelessly defend.

While politicians claim that these laws are intended to showcase the national motto or inspire patriotism, it is clear that their true purpose is to peddle religiosity to a captive audience. These laws are about advancing the Big Lie that the United States was “founded on God” or Christianity, dismantling the wall of separation between religion and government. The motto “In God We Trust” is inaccurate, exclusionary and aimed at brainwashing American schoolchildren into believing that our nation is a theocracy.

Please use our automated system to contact members of the Senate Committee on Education and Career Development and ask that they stop this bill in its tracks.

TAKE ACTION

ON THE AVENUES: Gehenna, Franklin Graham, Jean-Paul Sartre and Fred Astaire lead us straight to Hell.

There are times when sheer undiluted barrel-strength inanity leads unexpectedly to an interesting read -- which is to say that contrary to all previous experience, I've managed to learn something from Franklin Graham.

The evangelist Graham functions as a sort of professional court jester for our nation's cheerful contingent of theocratic fascists, a job he apparently inherited from his world-famous father Billy.

At the 1:21 mark of this video clip from 2007, the late, great Christopher Hitchens observes that any American president, however deserving of condemnation or impeachment, could always rely on Billy Graham to run to his side as a defender, toady and crony.

Franklin Graham has filled these shoes quite capably with regard to Donald Trump, hasn't he? That's because the very essence of both politics and religion is about accumulating power, and Graham gets it.

"I never said (Trump) was the best example of the Christian faith. He defends the faith. And I appreciate that very much."

The mind works in mysterious ways, and so let's begin with Graham's wholly predictable thoughts about Hoosier mayor Pete Buttigieg, which in a roundabout way led me from Graham via Leviticus to Old Gehenna.

New Gehenna is another story.

Franklin Graham Cites Death-to-Gays Bible Verse in Post About Pete Buttigieg, by Hemant Mehta (Friendly Atheist)

It’s never a good sign when atheists are the ones offering context to Bible verses that Christians are quoting, but when evangelist Franklin Graham is involved, that’s usually necessary. In a Facebook post purported denouncing people heckling Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, Graham managed to work in the verse that condemns gay people to death.

Franklin Graham: "The Bible makes it very clear that homosexuality is a sin. 'If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination...' (Leviticus 20:13). That’s what God says and that settles it for me. I stand with the Word of God. I care enough about people to tell them the truth and to warn them about the judgment to come for all sin."

See? Don’t heckle people when they’re talking. Just go on Facebook and explain why they deserve to be tortured in hellfire for all of eternity. Like good Christians.

The full verse from Leviticus 20:13, of course, is “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

At least the hecklers are just rude and ignorant. Graham thinks it’s loving to call for the death penalty for gay people who have sex… except he tries to hide it. Imagine cherry picking the Bible and picking a part that call for the execution of gay people who aren’t celibate. And then pretending you’re acting out of love. What a horrible person.

Graham's superstitious blather aside, Buttigieg being gay has nothing to do with anything, including his presidential aspirations, although Mayor Pete's political ambitions compel us to look past his private life and public speaking flair to those aspects of governance that matter most, as in platforms and policy ideas.

So far, Buttigieg is falling quite short on those job requirements. As usual, Bluegill offers this succinct summary:

The interesting part to me is how much Buttigieg’s fan club and hecklers have in common in terms of their reasoning— purely faith based on both sides.

---

It should be obvious by now that Christianity's Bible hasn't had a prominent place in my world of books, so Graham's mention of Leviticus had me wondering about the name itself; what, where or who was Leviticus? I had no idea.

It never got that far, because searching for Leviticus brought me to this excellent article about Hell.

Hell? I always thought Gehenna was a Gaelic notion borrowed by Bob Dylan for the song "Idiot Wind."

A History of Hell: Gehenna & Beyond, by Ali Kellog (Medium)

Hell seems to be a collective assault on the American imagination — the culmination of our entire post-Columbus cultural history and political infrastructure. Ask anyone familiar with it to describe the scene and you’ll likely get the same description across the board — a furnace of torture, suffering, demons and unfathomable pain. Hell is embedded into our lives, whether we believe in it or not. It’s a place mutually visited by every person’s imagination that has been exposed to an Abrahamic society. It’s a place we condemn undesirables to, a place we reference to instill fear and obedience, a place we devotionally protect our loved ones from being exiled to. For all our certainty of its existence, Hell is perhaps the least understood of places, even by the most studiously pious of individuals. Its assertion into our culture and conscience is a testament to our collective religious illiteracy. So why is it so vital we understand its origins, rather than blindly accept what we’ve been told about it? The latter method has, well, rarely worked in the favor of the common person throughout history.

Alas, Hell is real. Yes, that’s right. Or at least, it’s based off a real place — an ancient landfill to be exact. Although there is no mention of a “hell” in the Bible, it is based on an actual place. In Jerusalem, in the Valley of Hinnom, there is a large trash dump referred to in the Book of Matthew as “Gehenna”.

Yummers. For some reason I can't stop thinking about free fried chicken and the posting of hitches.

It was originally used by the ancient Israelites who sacrificed children and burnt their bodies to appease the pagan Canaanite god Molech. In Leviticus 18:20, God expressed his hatred of the false god Molech, and deemed the place unclean. Gehenna was eventually used as a landfill by the inhabitants of Jerusalem, where people took their trash to be burned. The place began to wreak havoc on daily life in Jerusalem. The smell of burning sewage, flesh, maggots and garbage wreaked absolute havoc on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, causing documented medical problems like nausea and breathing difficulty. Clearly, the place was unpleasant — frightening even — and thus it’s no surprise that Gehenna was used, and still is today, as a metaphor for the final place of punishment for the wicked. It was first used as a symbolic depiction of Hell in Mark 9:47. Gehenna was translated to Hell later, around 1200AD.

In sketching the parameters of this human creation called Hell, the author surveys etymology, the Old Testament and other ancient religions.

The ancient Egyptians had a place called Duat referenced heavily in their Book of the Dead. Maps of Duat were often inscribed on the insides of coffins and sarcophagi to help the deceased navigate the underworld. It is the underworld where violators of the law are condemned, as well as a host of mythological activity. According to the Book of the Dead, the sun god, Ra, goes to Duat every night to battle Apep, the god of Chaos. The dead who enter Duat must travel through various “gates” guarded by anthropomorphic hybrids of human bodies with various animal heads. These gatekeepers were ferocious and vile. For evidence, one need not look beyond their names. Guardians of the Gates of Duat had charming titles like “One Who Eats the Excrement from his Ass” and “Blood Drinker who Lives in the Slaughterhouse”.

“One Who Eats the Excrement from his Ass” sounds like a clinical definition of "brown nose." But enough about board appointments. The author conclusion fits like the dunce's cap on the head of Franklin Graham.

If so much of our public policy is weighted on the words found within the Bible — the alleged words of God himself — it is troubling that we digest the heavily processed and filtered versions of them with such ease and lack of skeptic inquiry. It is imperative to our progression as a species that we understand the origins of our belief systems and the role they play in the human psyche — to instill obedience to the status quo and dissuade any violators with the fear of an eternity of suffering.

All this hellish business brought to mind something supposedly written by the French intellectual Jean-Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people." However, it's not quite so simple.

The Most Famous Thing Jean-Paul Sartre Never Said, by Kirk Woodward (Rick on Theater)

The line “Hell is other people” in French reads “L’enfer, c’est les autres” or “Hell is [the] others.” (The best known English translation of the play, by Paul Bowles, actually renders the line “Hell is just – other people.”) We get a little more of the flavor of the line in English if we read it as “Hell is the Other.” That’s closer to the point, I believe. Sartre says that the Other – that which is not ourselves – is, or can be, a source of our distress.

In closing, it would be criminal to omit Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers from this educational digression.

I like potato and you like potahto
I like Gehenna and you like Gahanna
Potato, potahto, Gehenna, Gahanna!
Let's call the whole thing off!

Or Alice Cooper, because America's last remaining vaudevillian always gets the last word.



---

Recent columns:

April 16: ON THE AVENUES: Amid Deaf Gahan's "victory" over grassroots activists at Colonial Manor, the toxic paranoia is no less rancid.

April 9: ON THE AVENUES: It's time for a change, and David White understands that change begins with a whole lotta scrubbing.

April 2: ON THE AVENUES: Donnie Blevins tells his story.

March 26: ON THE AVENUES: Gahan's hoarding of power and money is a threat to New Albany's future.

Yep, Kruse (mind) Kontrol again: "Creationism would be taught in Indiana public schools, indoctrinating students with biblical literalism, if Senate Bill 373 becomes law."

The giant anus to which Dan refers:

The sponsor of the bill, Dennis Kruse (R-District 14), has a long history of sponsoring anti-evolution legislation.

Ah, the joys of Hoosierness.

---

INDIANA ANTI-EVOLUTION BILL WOULD INDOCTRINATE STUDENTS IN CREATIONISM (Center for Inquiry)

Creationism would be taught in Indiana public schools, indoctrinating students with biblical literalism, if Senate Bill 373 becomes law. The Center for Inquiry (CFI)—which advocates for reason, science, and secularism—has promised to take all necessary legal measures to oppose the bill’s passage or implementation.

Senate Bill 373 would permit Indiana public schools to teach “creation science” as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution. Creation science is a purely religious teaching that is unsupported by actual science. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause protects public school students from indoctrination in religious ideas such as creation science.

“The children of Indiana deserve a high-quality science education. It is their right to be properly taught the fundamentals of biology,” said Bertha Vazquez, director of CFI’s Teacher Institute for Evolutionary Science. “How else will they be able to compete in an increasingly competitive college entrance process and the national job market? The parents of Indiana should be outraged that their own children will be subjected to the willful ignorance of a few legislators.”

SB 373 also requires public schools to display a poster stating “In God We Trust” in each classroom and library.

This is similar to model legislation promoted by the Christian nationalist Project Blitz, an effort by the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation to impose Christianity on Americans through operation of law. The Project Blitz manual encourages religious Right lobbyists to advocate for Christian nationalist legislation in their home states beginning with symbolic “In God We Trust” bills. Additional legislative initiatives would allow religious discrimination against women seeking reproductive health care, same-sex couples, transgender people, and other marginalized groups. CFI stands with our secular and interfaith partners who oppose the goals and methods of Project Blitz. We see it as a full-on assault on one of the nation’s founding principles: that religion and government shall be separate.

“Secular education promotes critical thinking and religious freedom,” said Robyn Blumner, CFI’s president and CEO. “Students deserve instruction in real science, without taxpayer money being used to proselytize a narrow version of Christianity that subscribes to unscientific notions of how the universe came to be. If parents want to give their children this type of religious instruction, they are certainly free to do so, but they need to do it on their own time and their own dime, not paid for from the public purse.”

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) is a nonprofit educational, advocacy, and research organization headquartered in Amherst, New York, with executive offices in Washington, D.C. It is also home to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and the Council for Secular Humanism. The Center for Inquiry strives to foster a secular society based on reason, science, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. Visit CFI on the web at centerforinquiry.org.

Mike Pence minced in The New Yorker: "(Ed) Clere remains bitter about Pence."

Together occasionally, if not forever (photo credit).

Yesterday there was just enough time for us to fire off a link and tease readers a little bit.

In the NAC posting "Be careful what you wish for: 'The President Pence Delusion,' including a pivotal cameo by a New Albanian we all know," a long and very worthwhile read in The New Yorker was linked.

The President Pence Delusion, by Jane Mayer (The New Yorker)

Trump’s critics yearn for his exit. But Mike Pence, the corporate right’s inside man, poses his own dangers.

 ... (Vice President Mike) Pence likes to say of himself, “I am a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order.” But Clere is not alone in questioning Pence’s political purity.

Yes, the questioner in question is none other than State Representative Ed Clere, the New Albanian we know so well, whose cameo is a critical component of an essay no doubt being consumed nationally even as I write.

Here is the passage.

---

In 2015, Ed Clere, a Republican state legislator who chaired the House Committee on Public Health, became aware of a spike in the number of H.I.V. cases in southern Indiana. The problem appeared to be caused by the sharing of needles among opioid abusers in Scott County, which sits across the Ohio River from Louisville, Kentucky. In a place like Scott County, Clere said, “typically you’d have no cases, or maybe one a year.” Now they were getting up to twenty a week. The area was poor, and woefully unprepared for a health crisis. (Pence’s campaign against Planned Parenthood had contributed to the closure of five clinics in the region; none had performed abortions, but all had offered H.I.V. testing.) That same year, the state health commissioner called Indiana’s H.I.V. outbreak a public-health emergency.

Clere came of age during the AIDS crisis, and had read Randy Shilts’s best-selling account, “And the Band Played On.” He tried to get the legislature to study the possibility of legalizing a syringe exchange, which he felt “was a matter of life and death,” and could “save lives quickly and inexpensively.”

But conservatives blocked the idea, and Pence threatened to veto any such legislation. “With Pence, you need to look at the framework, which is abstinence,” Clere said. “It’s the same as with giving teen-agers condoms. Conservatives think it promotes the behavior, even though it’s a scientifically proven harm-reduction strategy.” In March, 2015, Clere staged a huge public hearing, in which dozens of experts and sufferers testified about the crisis. Caught flat-footed, Pence scheduled his own event, where he announced that he would pray about the syringe-exchange issue. The next day, he said that he supported allowing an exchange program as an emergency measure, but only on a temporary basis and only in Scott County, with no state funding. Clere told me that he spent “every last dime of my political capital” to get the bill through. After Scott County implemented the syringe exchange, the number of new H.I.V. cases fell. But Republican leaders later stripped Clere of his committee chairmanship, a highly unusual event. “I commend Representative Clere for the efforts to help the state deal with this,” Kevin Burke, the health officer in neighboring Clark County, told me. “But he paid a price for it.”

Clere remains bitter about Pence. “It was all part of his pattern of political expediency,” he said. “He was stridently against it until it became politically expedient to support it.” Clere, a Christian who opposes abortion, told me that he now finds Pence’s piety hypocritical. “He says he’s ‘pro-life,’ ” Clere said. “But people were dying.” When Clere was asked whom he would rather have as President—Trump or Pence—he replied, “I’d take Trump every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.”

Be careful what you wish for: "The President Pence Delusion," including a pivotal cameo by a New Albanian we all know.

Absolutely vital reading in The New Yorker. It is impossible to summarize several thousand words with just one paragraph. I've chosen to highlight the essay's conclusion.

But you're curious aren't you?

Well, if you want to know which New Albanian was interviewed for the article, you'll just have to go look for yourself.

The President Pence Delusion, by Jane Mayer (The New Yorker)

Trump’s critics yearn for his exit. But Mike Pence, the corporate right’s inside man, poses his own dangers.

... Many Americans have debated whether the country would be better off with Pence as President. From a purely partisan viewpoint, Harold Ickes, a longtime Democratic operative, argues that—putting aside the fear that Trump might start a nuclear war—“Democrats should hope Trump stays in office,” because he makes a better foil, and because Pence might work more effectively with Congress and be more successful at advancing the far right’s agenda. Newt Gingrich predicts that Pence will probably get a chance to do so. “I think he’s the most likely Republican nominee in 2024,” he said. Ron Klain, who was chief of staff to the former Vice-President Joe Biden, is skeptical of this, given Trump’s accumulating baggage. “There is no success for Mike Pence unless Trump works—he cannot run far enough or fast enough to not get hit by the falling tree,” Klain said. “But he may think he can.” Evidently, the next chapter is on Pence’s mind. Over the fireplace in the Vice-President’s residence, he has hung a plaque with a passage from the Bible: “ ‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the lord, ‘Plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.’ ”

"President Mike Pence is proud to serve the white and Christian population of America for more than two decades."

As I've been saying ... When the GOP elders get what they want from Trump, he's gone -- and with him the blame.

They're happier with Pence, anyway.

President Mike Pence? Dems should be 'careful what they wish for', experts say, by David Smith (The Guardian)

The idea of Pence taking over from Donald Trump has lately gained traction, but his conservatism and his likely effectiveness pose a threat to the left

Visitors to officialmikepence.com discover an elaborate spoof website for “Mike Pence: the 46th president of the United States”. A banner at the top asks: “Are you a homosexual? If yes, click here.” (It links to hell.com.) A campaign logo refers to Pence and his running mate Christ with crosses and stars. “President Mike Pence is proud to serve the white and Christian population of America for more than two decades,” the page says.

SNIP

“You might now have created your worst problem because that might end up being a very productive president. You also are putting somebody in who is very socially conservative. So whereas Donald Trump talks about social conservatism but basically he can be talked out of almost anything by his daughter, Mike Pence actually walks the walk.”

"FFRF sues Trump over church politicking" ... but please, have a happy Derby.

More power to the powerful, including in this instance the theocrats ... but hey, I hope you weren't unduly troubled on Star Wars Day. Your priorities, and all.

FFRF sues Trump over church politicking

The Freedom From Religion Foundation it will legally challenge President Trump over his “religious liberty” executive order today. The order and Trump’s repeated statements clearly communicate to churches that they can now endorse political candidates from the pulpit.

FFRF’s lawsuit is planned to be filed by the end of the day, May 4, in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin. FFRF and co-plaintiffs FFRF Executive Directors Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor assert that Trump has used this order to usher in a new era of church politicking to the exclusion of secular organizations.

Trump signed the executive order with great fanfare during a National Day of Prayer ceremony in the Rose Garden before a largely clerical audience. Trump said:

"This executive order directs the IRS not to unfairly target churches and religious organizations for political speech. No one should be censoring sermons or targeting pastors. [Standing ovation.] . . . In America we do not fear people speaking freely from the pulpit, we embrace it.”

Trump also told churches that, with his new order, they would not lose their tax exemption for violating the rule and could say whatever they wanted: “This financial threat against the faith community is over. . . . You’re now in a position where you can say what you want to say.”

Among its several abuses, Trump’s order and statements signal to the Internal Revenue Service that it should not enforce the electioneering restrictions of the tax code against churches and religious organizations, while permitting these restrictions to be enforced against secular nonprofits. FFRF asserts the president has no constitutional authority to selectively veto a legitimate statute that Congress passed and a president signed into law more than 50 years ago.

This part of the law is known as the Johnson Amendment. Under the amendment, all organizations that are recognized as exempt from federal income tax under §501(c)(3) of the Tax Code are subject to the prohibition against political campaign intervention.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, contends that Trump is violating its equal protection rights and favoring church groups over secular groups, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Trump has directed the IRS to do something for which they both lack any enumerated or implied power: to selectively enforce a legitimate statute based solely on religion.

Even if the precise language of the executive order does not accomplish Trump’s promise to “totally destroy the Johnson Amendment,” the impression his administration is actively trying to foster among evangelical Christians is that the IRS will no longer enforce the Johnson Amendment against them.

The state/church separation watchdog sued the IRS in 2014 for its failure to enforce the electioneering restrictions and settled the suit after the IRS agreed to begin implementing these restrictions.

FFRF has public opinion on its side. According to an evangelical polling group, Lifeway Research, whose slogan is “Biblical Solutions for Life,” nearly 80 percent of Americans say it’s inappropriate for pastors to endorse a candidate in church, and 75 percent do not believe it is appropriate for churches to publicly endorse candidates.

As advertised by Trump, the executive order effectively provides preferential treatment to churches and will result in obligations on secular nonprofits, including the plaintiffs, that are not imposed on churches. This could amount to more than $100 million annually in tax-free contributions for politicking pastors.

“Trump is communicating to churches that his administration will not enforce the Johnson Amendment,” says Gaylor. “The IRS needs clear direction that it must enforce the law equally.”

FFRF’s legal complaint enumerates Trump’s many public avowals to repeal the Johnson Amendment restrictions against churches. For instance, Trump promised a closed-door group of hundreds of Christian conservatives in June 2016 that overturning the Johnson Amendment “will be my greatest contribution to Christianity, and other religions. ” At the National Prayer Breakfast in February, Trump vowed to “get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment.”

FFRF is asking the court to declare that Trump has violated the Establishment Clause and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and acted in excess of presidential authority under Article II of the Constitution.

Gaylor notes that the pandering ceremony in the Rose Garden by the White House shows the ongoing harm of the National Day of Prayer, enacted by Congress at the behest of Rev. Billy Graham in 1952. FFRF won a resounding court ruling declaring the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional in 2010, in which the district judge noted: “The same law that prohibits the government from declaring a National Day of Prayer also prohibits it from declaring a National Day of Blasphemy.” The challenge was stalled when a court of appeals ruled against FFRF’s standing (or right to sue), not the merits, in 2011.

“As Judge Barbara Crabb noted in that ruling, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience,” Gaylor observes.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a nonprofit membership organization that advocates for the separation of church and state and educates on matters relating to nontheism. It has more than 28,000 members, residing in every state of the United States, including more than 1,400 in Wisconsin, as well as members in the District of Columbia.

FFRF is being represented by attorney Richard L. Bolton and FFRF Staff Attorneys Andrew L. Seidel and Sam Grover.

"God Can Change Gays," says former Kentucky governor Julian Carroll.

My first reaction upon seeing this story on Twitter (below) was incredulity: How could it be that Julian Carroll is still alive?

(He's 85).

And he's a state senator in Kentucky?

And he's a DEMOCRAT?

If you don't already follow Jacob Payne on Twitter, I recommend doing so. Hoosiers have precious little room to laugh, if any, but some of the political tidings in the Commonwealth are breathtaking, and Jake covers them all. Scroll back a few days, and he has much of interest to say about Carroll's (shall we say self-serving) remarks.

God Can Change Gays, Says Former Kentucky Governor & Current State Senator (The River City News)

It was a story about how being gay in a Kentucky campaign was a surprising non-issue.

Jim Gray, the Lexington mayor who is the Democratic Party's nominee to face incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Rand Paul in November, is openly gay.

"Does anybody care?," asked the headline in Roll Call, the DC-based political newspaper ...

 ... The part about Gray's allies who may still believe that being gay is a choice seems to point to former governor Julian Carroll, now a state senator representing Frankfort. Carroll, a Democrat, is quoted towards the end of the lengthy profile published Monday. Here's what Roll Call included from the Democratic Minority Whip ...

Our new American fascism: "Ordinariness is no protection against doing great evil."

Just the other night over beers, I ventured the opinion that another global conflict on the order of the World Wars is inevitable -- not the disruptive but ultimately low intensity of the "war on terrorist Muslims," and not nuclear conflict (losing too many markets is bad for the 1%), but the big conventional kahuna, perhaps with a handy plague or famine to follow.

Cynicism aside, realism informs us that this cycle of pain has been repeated throughout human history, again and again. War becomes attractive, and is viewed as an acceptable alternative to negotiation, once enough people have forgotten what it really means, and with attention spans ever shorter amid the most readily available surplus of useful information in mankind's history, it's hard to come up with a plausible argument for the maintenance of peace.

I might suggest there are effective uses to thoughtful knowledge of the past, but that's thinking, and I'm not sure this notion is of interest at the precise moment when American wheels threaten to skip rails.

I'd suggest that recalling the lessons of the Holocaust, and remembering why we return so often to Eichmann, Arendt and the "banality" of evil, except that so many of our homegrown fascists are yelling so loudly, and the sound of those boots landing on human faces tends to drown out the teaching moment.

Why Adolf Eichmann’s final message remains so profoundly unsettling, by Giles Fraser (The Guardian)

 ... All of which doesn’t make Eichmann any less disturbing. It makes him more so. For what Arendt’s Eichmann did was to demonstrate that ordinariness is no protection against doing great evil. Cesarani too, sees Eichmann as a sort of “everyman”. No, he wasn’t just a travel agent, indifferent to the destination of his passengers. He was personally responsible, a responsibility he blindly denied right to the end. Which is precisely why the moral message of his story remains profoundly unsettling: if ordinary people were capable of such great evil, then, given the right circumstances, so are the rest of us.

Burn Baby Burn: Pence "scorched" by the RFRA firestorm, as we provide legal opinions.

And the best Silent Ron Grooms belatedly can manage is, "But all the other fascists states do it, too."

Verily, the state of Indiana's Holiday Inn Express hotels have been inundated with overnighters since Governor Mike Pence signed SB/HB 101 earlier this week and established the reign of error known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Before moving to a few legal opinions, let's look back on the past week's unpleasantness in our one-party Hoosier paradise:

March 24: Religious freedom: How about freedom from embarrassment?, by David Hoppe (NUVO)

KRAVITZ BLOG: Religious freedom bill may hurt Indy's sports, convention business, by Bob Kravitz (WTHR)

March 25: Tully: Statehouse Republicans embarrass Indiana. Again, by Matthew Tully (Indy Star)

March 27: Local religious leaders, others fire back at Religious Freedom act’s passage, by Jerod Clapp (News and Tribune)

March 28: Seattle, San Francisco mayors join in boycott of Indiana over RFRA, by Madeline Buckley (Indy Star)

And George Takei, and Keith Olbermann, and dozens of other humiliations, great and small. Even Pence's own feelings now have been hurt, along with his presidential prospects, and so damage control is operating full tilt:

Gov. Mike Pence to push for clarification of ‘religious freedom’ law, by Tim Swarens (Indy Star)

Gov. Mike Pence, scorched by a fast-spreading political firestorm, told The Star on Saturday that he will support the introduction of legislation to “clarify” that Indiana’s controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not promote discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Pence breaks into karaoke: "There must be some misunderstanding ... There must be some kind of mistake." The band is Genesis, which seems fitting. 

Following are three explications of RFRA from the legal community. The authors may or may not have stayed in a Holiday In Express, or even someone's airbnb spare bedroom, but at least they're trained, rested and ready.

Opinion: Democracy key in fighting Indiana and Kentucky ‘religious freedom’ laws, by Joe Dunman (Insider Louisville)

So how can opponents of discrimination defeat “religious freedom” laws? There is no easy answer, unfortunately. Laws like RFRA already have been upheld as generally constitutional. They codify a right already present in the First Amendment and don’t single out any classifications of people in their text or application. And limiting the classifications protected by civil rights laws is generally within the discretion of a legislature to do, since civil rights laws themselves are products of the legislative branch.

The Indiana and Kentucky civil rights acts currently omit sexual orientation from protection and there’s no constitutional compulsion to change that. Adding protected classifications is subject to the whim of the voters and those they elect to represent them.

Democracy is the key. Unlike discriminatory marriage bans, “religious freedom” laws like those in Indiana and Kentucky are best defeated at the ballot box. For this reason and many others, state elections matter. Individuals, businesses, and lobbying groups must pressure legislators not to pass and governors not to sign such laws, and vote them out of office when they do.

And:

The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act – An Analysis of Its Controversy, by Matt Anderson (IN Advance)

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this law to its opponents is that it comes right after Indiana’s very public and very unsuccesful bid to ban gay marriage. Our own attorney general went state to state submitting amicus briefs in support of laws that would prevent state-sanctioned gay marriage. The state’s arguments at the 7th Circuit were nearly laughed out of the courtroom and were called out for what they were: discrimination based on personal views. The proponents of the IRFRA seem to gloss over this aspect even though the proponents of this bill were the same who had tried to ban gay marriage through Indiana’s Constitution. The exasperation could probably summed up as: “Look, if you hate the LGBT community, so be it . . . but don’t act like this law has nothing to do with it.”

And:

Letter from the legal scholars

We write you as legal scholars with expertise in matters of religious freedom, civil rights, and the interaction between those fields, to offer our expert opinion on the scope and meaning of the proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts pending before both houses of the Indiana legislature. The thirty signatories to this letter, many who are Indiana University law professors, agree with the Indiana Supreme Court “that the Indiana Constitution’s religious liberty clauses did not intend to afford only narrow protection for a person’s internal thoughts and private practices of religion and conscience.” We share the view that a commitment to religious liberty is fundamental to a uniquely American notion of pluralism whereby religiously motivated practices should be accommodated in contexts where such accommodation would not result in meaningful harm to the rights of identifiable third parties.

That said, we have several concerns with the language of the proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA).

Just giving the farcical pharmacist a taste of his own bitter medicine.

It will burden my exercise of basic human decency, but I'll be civil ... until he tries to order a Miller Lite.

After all, it's the only rational response to theocratic fascism.

Credit our Rep. Ed Clere for voting no. Surprisingly, so did Steve Stemler, who finally spotted something Democratic in his party affiliation, but it's small consolation, and as K noted on Fb:

"Ed still votes to give tax dollars to religious schools through vouchers."

In 2008, Barack Obama won the state of Indiana. Since that moment, our state's white, Republican, theocratic fascists have maneuvered remorselessly to turn back the clock to antebellum times. More often than not, they've succeeded. But history is cyclical, and death rattles often are preceded by seemingly powerful, last-gasp emissions of bile and intemperance. Then, the hollow structure collapses in on itself.

Today's vote fuels my contempt for them even more, and it just makes me want to fight back harder. Of all the commentaries I read on this topic, John Krull said it best.

Unholy arguments and religious freedom (NUVO)

 ... We need to understand exactly how steep the slope is we’re standing on with this bill. The premise behind it is that our laws will be subordinate to an individual’s conscience. We only have to follow the laws with which we agree. The burden shifts to the state to prove it has a reason for asking us to follow the law.

Once we start rolling down that hill, who knows where we’ll stop. If following the law becomes a matter of personal choice based on one’s religious beliefs, then the idea of law itself is compromised.

Maddeningly true. But I'll live to see the bastards choke on it ... and I will laugh, long and loud.

Theocratic Fascism Restoration Act: "Ignoring Resistance by Corporations, Indiana Set to Pass Religious Discrimination Bill."

Even the state's major corporate business interests, who customarily enjoy having their boots delicately licked by the likes of a fawning Ron Grooms, view this reincarnation of the Nuremberg Laws to be a very bad idea.

Ignoring Resistance by Corporations, Indiana Set to Pass Religious Discrimination Bill (Human Rights Campaign)

However, such is the importance of assuaging the primal fear of white (and mostly Protestant) Indiana right-wingers that Grooms -- who voted just as enthusiastically for this abomination as he voted against marriage equality, at least gaining points for dull-witted consistency in discriminatory intent -- joins with the fraternity of the Pencenuts in rendering Indiana a laughing stock.

An open letter to the Indiana House of Representatives (NUVO)

Ironic, isn't it? Surely the majority of "Christians" backing such legislation belong to churches that enjoy tax exempt status. But they still avail themselves of the nation's infrastructure, don't they?

So do businesses large and small, most of which are subject to taxation (of course, evasion occurs), and while there'll always be differing opinions as to the what a fair rate of taxation truly is, it remains that most of us remain tethered to this grid of infrastructure for daily use: Streets, roads, sidewalks, electricity, sewers, water ... in short, the collective gathering of resources necessary and beneficial to all, subsidized in ways both great and small by and for us all.

I'm a business owner, and my business depends on this collective infrastructure to operate. Unless my business is prepared to opt out from the collective infrastructure, it cannot opt out of the collective social contract that builds and maintains it -- and how does one opt out from the collective infrastructure? As long as a publicly maintained path leads to one's door, it is scarcely possible.

The gist of American history in my reading is to reserve matters of individual conscience, like religious expression, to the individual: Believe as you please and be as you are, so long as it does not hurt others. For a business to argue that it must be free to discriminate on the basis of "religion" (and whatever that is cannot be agreed upon by Christians themselves) mocks this notion of civilization's advancement.

It's absolutely chilling that so many Hoosiers seem to think these rights exist in a vacuum, unconnected with anything at all apart from their own self-identified sectarian preferences, and that there is no ultimate benefit to giving a little (rigid cultural exclusivity) to gain a lot (expanded enrichment in terms of personal finance and spirituality) of multiculturalism.

I also understand that so much of it is fear. The fear isn't rational, but unfortunately, religion rushes in where the human mind fears to tread. That's a scenario for education, not legislation. I'm told that Rep. Ed Clere (R-72) opposes this example of odious lawmaking. That's good.

Will Steve "Seriously, I'm a Democrat, Every Now and Then" Stemler sit this vote out, too?

Conservatives Admit The Truth On Indiana ‘Religious Liberty’ Bill (Think Progress)

Krull: "What they know for sure that isn't so."

If Mark Twain really said the words reprinted on this meme, then "imbeciles who really mean it" works quite well, too.

Krull: What they know for sure that isn't so, by John Krull (TheStatehouseFile.com via the C-J)

INDIANAPOLIS – Long ago in an almost forgotten presidential primary debate, U.S. Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-South Carolina, delivered a classic line about Ronald Reagan.

It wasn't the things that the Gipper didn't know that created trouble, Hollings said

Rather, Hollings continued, it was the stuff that Reagan "knew for sure that just wasn't so" that was the problem.

I've thought about Hollings' jest as we approach the 2015 session of the Indiana General Assembly.

This session promises us proposals that will protect the "rights" of Christians to celebrate Christmas in public schools and on courthouse lawns and to refuse service to gay people because doing so will violate their religious principles.

Doubtless, we also will see Indiana Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, R-Fort Wayne, continue his efforts with other state legislators from around the country to rewrite the U.S. Constitution.

Driving these initiatives is the unshakable conviction that something is wrong with the moral workings of the universe and the law if social conservatives aren't allowed to use the power of government — to borrow former Republican U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock's revealing phrase — "to inflict" their "views on others."

Bob Russell says "God" gave you your race, not your sex.

I am of the conviction that religion is not a tax-exempt issue at all. It is a taxable issue. By the way: GET OFF MY PORCH, Bob.

Are Gay Rights Civil Rights?

... I am of the conviction that homosexuality is not a civil rights issue at all. It is a behavioral issue. To have sex with someone of the same gender is an individual choice. It is not a distinctive like race, which is a God-given feature that cannot be denied ...

Back to the Ghetto: "Religiously conservative businesses" amid their own kind?

I recall the words of my hero Christopher Hitchens, even as I read about various legislative efforts (Arizona, Indiana) on the part of soon-to-be-extinct elderly white theocrats to sanction discrimination based on religious indoctrination:

"There are four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking."

First, the dawdling old white guys, cluelessly pandering.

Anderson Cooper Demolishes Arizona Politician Supporting Homophobic Bill, by Jack Mirkinson (The Huffington Post)

Then a journey into the "fully intended consequences" labyrinthe.

Arizona bill’s other outrage: Why anti-gay bigotry is just the beginning; Legalizing discrimination is horrible enough. But a sneaky pro-corporate provision in the bill will also shock you, by Emmett Rensin (Salon)

Of course, not excepting the propensity of theocratic fascists in Indiana to gaily hop aboard the discriminatory train.

Indiana official slows bill to allow some religious bias, by Tony Cook (IndyStar)

But let's also acknowledge a contrarian point-of-view, as offered with customary aplomb by RV:

From what I understand, the Arizona bill is a reaction to the New Mexico photographer who refused to work a gay commitment ceremony, & was subsequently sued for refusing. Should a gay caterer be forced to cater an event at Westboro baptist Church? Should a Muslim DJ be forced to spin records at a Satanist wedding? Should a Nation of Islam drycleaner be forced to clean Klan robes?

On HJR-3, Tully takes Rhoads to school, and she skips class.

A while back on Facebook, Brad Bell asked State Representative Rhonda Rhoads to comment on her motives for sponsoring HJR-3 (formerly HJR-6), and she did.

I believe that if the definition of marriage is changed from what is current law in the state of Indiana , than it should go before the citizens of Indiana to decide if they want a different definition, not allow one judge to make that determination. This discussion has been going on for some time. Let it rest in the hands of the voters... Not me, not one judge. Amending the constitution is not easy nor was it intended to be easy. Lots of discussion and time are required. I want you and all Hoosiers to participate in the discussion hence my help in authoring this bill. Thank you for participating!

Yesterday, IndyStar columnist Matthew Tully replied; not specifically to Rhoads, which would be tantamount to asking a weather forecaster to look out the window, but to Indiana's enduring strain of theocratic fascism, which has reared its stupid, latent, ugly head repeatedly during the HJR era. Tully's elegant and sensible retort is among the finest I have read, and unlike certain city councilpersons, I read more than one book every five years.

Rhoads, Ron Grooms, Steve Stemler (the latter a Dixiecrat) -- could they ... would they ... are they capable of understanding Tully's position?

Tully: Gay marriage debate’s biggest problem? It’s just plain wrong, by Matthew Tully (IndyStar)

... This amendment is so disturbingly wrong, so morally offensive, so out of step with where our nation is, that it’s hard to believe its advocates continue to persist. The idea that our political leaders are calling for a public referendum to make clear in the constitution that some of our neighbors are second-class citizens — well, it’s stomach-turning ...

... Although I hope that the state I love would reject the amendment, and the spirit behind it, I don’t know what will happen in what will likely be a low turnout mid-term election. Just like I don’t know what would have happened if Hoosiers had been asked not so long ago to vote on an amendment to ban interracial marriages, or to protect segregated schools or other forms of discrimination ...

ON THE AVENUES: 1Si, Kerry, ROCK and the gays.

ON THE AVENUES: 1Si, Kerry, ROCK and the gays.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

Remember back in 2007, when One Southern Indiana was tying itself in church/state/oligarchy enrichment knots by ineptly seeking to bind itself to the Reclaim Our Culture Kentuckiana cabal?

Boy, do WE remember it here at NA Confidential. Never, ever has it been any more fun ripping down statues of idols than when 1Si was thrashing in self-Stemler-inflicted Neanderthal agony over Theatair-X.

Great moments in silent film: Michael Dalby throws Kerry Stemler a lifeline.

Did anyone notice that in the end, when it came to clarifying the relationship of One Southern Indiana with Reclaim Our Culture Kentuckiana, Michael Dalby duly took responsibility for acknowledging the slippery slope that 1SI chairman of the board Kerry Stemler, not Dalby himself, originally commenced sliding down at the ROCK press conference?

Eminences seldom get grayer than Kerry Stemler, nor logic fuzzier than when refracted through the immaculately laundered linen of his privileged white Wonder Bread mind.

In 2007, Stemler was 1Si's Big Chief Tablet Chairman of the Board, and he had decided one morning over Pop-Tarts and Sanka that it would be a great idea to hop into bed with the meddling theocrats and scripture-quoters at ROCK, because doing so might end the vile threat to regional economic development posed by a solitary smut shop in Clarksville -- this being the same Stemler (and the same 1Si) who were conspiring at the very same time to toll those few precious Kentuckians choosing to cross bridges to come to Indiana and spend their money.

Go figure the economic development merits of THAT strategy ... but I digress. We asked:

What does ROCK's theocratic advocacy have to do with economic development, and why is Stemler giving 1SI's imprimatur to a very specific and exclusionary Christian advocacy group?

As soon became hilariously clear, Stemler's choice of churches had been made without the knowledge of 1Si's then-president, Michael Dalby, who in the end was compelled to take the responsibility hit and control the mayhem as Stemler retreated to the board room for another round of Champale and Chef Boyardee, a pairing of champions.

Now the topic is HJR-6, Indiana's lamentable attempt to fuse reactionary clergy with constitutional amendment, and thus stem the tide of rampant buggery and same sex marriage. The organization calling itself Freedom Indiana explains the basis of opposition to this sheer lunacy.

Freedom for all Hoosiers!

We are a statewide bipartisan coalition of businesses, faith leaders, civil rights and community organizations, and individuals united to defeat HJR-6.

This anti-freedom amendment duplicates existing law and would permanently ban all protections for same-sex couples and their families and remove existing protections for unmarried Hoosiers.

Stand with us, and sign the petition to defeat HJR-6!

As documented daily by reputable news organizations across the state, and others with metered paywalls, the momentum against HJR-6 is building quickly, and as the bookseller pointed out earlier in the week, the dominoes continue to fall against the amendment.

INDIANAPOLIS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMES OUT AGAINST ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

"Indiana's struggles to retain its college graduates are well documented and often acknowledged in the state legislature. Its necessity to ease this "brain drain" by attracting talent on a national scale would be inhibited by adopting an unnecessary, discriminatory amendment with fading support from younger generations.

"As the only potential marriage amendment up for consideration nationwide in 2014, it is important to be mindful of the conspicuous part HJR-6 would play in portraying Indiana as a state that welcomes some, but not all, talented workers."

Forever eager for clarification, I've gone to One Southern Indiana's Facebook page twice in recent weeks to ask whether the organization had yet lifted its quivering finger to the winds of modernity, and as yet, no reply has been forthcoming. It's no wonder, given that 1Si possesses the quaint view of social media wherein communications always are a top-down, one-way street. No doubt such an attitude was copped from the likes of Kerry Stemler himself.

It's an institutional thang, tantamount to a human stain. Nowadays Stemler seems to believe he is the chairman of the board of Southern Indiana as a geopolitical entity, and not just calling plays for 1Si. As such, will he be interfering in this great drama?

Indeed, what happens next?

Will 1Si do the right thing?

Will it do anything at all?

If 1Si actually decides to queue for once on history's correct side, will ROCK subsequently gather its members into a tight circle outside 1Si HQ, douse themselves with petrol -- and then both of them catch on fire?

Can we throw Stemler on that same fire and make it a threesome? Hasn't he done enough damage to the regional societal fabric (as opposed the profitability comforter) for one clueless lifetime?

Let's just say that while hopeful, I'm not holding my breath.

A brief note on the jarring persistence of fundamentalist douchebaggery in L'America.

In this case, at the monolithic edifice known as Southeast Christian.

Oy.

“We want everyone, including ourselves, to live by biblical standards,” (Mullah) Hester said.

Great.

Suit yourself.

Just leave me out of it, okay?

Predictably, the real disaster is Albert Mohler.

Because Mohler is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, we're unfortunately compelled to be smitten by his voluminous wind far more often than those residing in civilized portions of the country. However, he still is considered a quoteworthy ayatollah of sorts among the nation's evangelicals in need of "leadership," sacred or profane.

Last year, I advised Mohler to stay the hell off my porch.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Albert Mohler: Policy Change on Gay Boy Scouts, Leaders Would Be a 'Disaster', by Joseph Lord (WFPL)

The president of the Louisville-based Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is criticizing the Boy Scouts of America's decision to re-examine a policy that excluded openly gay scouts and scout leaders.

Albert Mohler discussed the possible Boy Scouts change with USA Today, calling it "nothing less than disastrous" for the organization.