Atheists Sue Perry for Promoting a Single Religion

I didn’t know that there were any here in the Bible Belt, but apparently Houston area atheists have filed suit against Rick Perry for sponsoring The Response, Rick Perry’s call to Christian prayer and fasting so that the Christian god, or gods, may help us through these troubling times.

Their case? Weak. In summary, here is what they have against Rick Perry’s participation in this planned event, from the Austin American-Statesman:

“Perry’s participation in the Aug. 6 event amounts to government sponsorship and endorsement of religion in violation of the First Amendment.”

“Prayer and fasting, the Wisconsin-based organization said in the lawsuit, ‘are not only an ineffectual use of time and government resources, but which can be harmful or counterproductive as a substitute for reasoned action.’”

Now there is some basis for the first argument. Rick Perry, under color of law as a governor of the state, is holding a Christian-only prayer event, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, B’hai, or Jews need not apply. This runs counter to the Establishment Clause of the 1^st Amendment.

They have a point.

Where the argument falls apart is the judgmental claim that a prayer meet-up can be harmful or counterproductive. That is a value judgment, almost as religious a claim that prayer brings help from on high.

No, if I were going to file a lawsuit against this event I would definitely concentrate on the fact that the organizers of the event is the hate-filled American Family Association, who, despite their innocuous name, has, through its issues director, alleged “that gays caused the Holocaust—and are planning on doing it again; that gays should be banned from holding public office; that homosexuality should be criminalized; that foreign Muslims should either be converted to Christianity or subjected to lethal force; that American Muslims should be deported; that there should be a permanent ban on mosque construction in the United States; and that Muslims should be prohibited from serving in the armed forces.”

Not that their beliefs are illegal, they have a perfect right to hold lunatic ideas like that. But that Rick Perry, as governor of Texas, endorses these rightwing extremist notions. Taxpayers should not have to be made to support this kind of extremism.

Commissioners’ Court Diverts Federal Dollars to Women’s Shelter

It’s an interesting turn of events when you see the Fort Bend County Commissioner’s Court do an amazing thing right out in the open, but that is what happened this week when they voted 3 to 2 to take $20,000 in federal grant money and reallocate it from one charitable organization to another.

Voting, this time, against County Judge Bob Hebert.

What could be behind this, I had to ask myself. So I perused the rest of the article found here in the Chronicle’s Fort Bend County blog and thought I had an answer, but question marks still kept appearing.

The 20 grand in question was targeted to benefit the Fred and Mabel Parks Youth Ranch, Inc. a facility currently under construction in rural Fairchilds. This is a facility meant to house abused troubled and homeless children in Fort Bend County. A homeless shelter for children does not exist in Fort Bend County. Well not one for those who are not charged with a crime, anyway. The facility was funded by the Fred and Mabel Parks Foundation and the Mamie George Foundation. Management of the construction of the facility was donated by Asset Plus Companies.

This endeavor, it seems is a multi-million dollar undertaking.

An undertaking that has as one of its board members the very same County Judge Hebert who voted in favor of sending the 20 large to this charity. His charity.

Instead, Commissioners Morrison, Prestage and Meyer voted to divert that money away from Hebert’s project and direct it toward the Fort Bend County Women’s Shelter, an organization that houses and shelters abused women and their small children. This organization, by the way, was the beneficiary of $60,842 from the same federal emergency shelter grant, bringing their total up to $80,642, or 94.8% of the total federal grant.

Hebert said that the vote was “political.” From the Chron:

“I can’t sit there and vote to withhold money from a charitable organization whose only mission is to help homeless children. I think it’s a terrible precedent that members of the court made a determination on what charities are worthy of receiving federal money.”

In seeming answer to Hebert’s charges of politicization of charities, the article then concentrated on community opposition to the youth ranch and specifically how neighbors have been negatively impacted by the ranch’s construction.

So what is it? Was the vote to divert funds to the Women’s Shelter a vote in support of Fairchilds residents who opposed the project? Was it a vote to overturn what seemed to be an obvious conflict of interest on the part of Bob Hebert? Or was it simply a choice of which charity needed the funds more, a well-funded youth ranch or the women’s shelter, which gets its funding from donations and proceeds from the sale of used goods in their thrift store?

Whichever it was, one or all, I really don’t care.

Here’s why.

It took a little digging but I discovered that the Fred and Mabel Parks Youth Ranch will be run by the Arrow Child and Family Ministries, or Arrow Ministries for short. This is a Christian organization that endeavors to create “communities of children and families who have experienced healed hearts and changed lives enjoying a whole and meaningful life through faith in Jesus Christ.”

I also discovered that Arrow Ministries is in some way associated with the Michael Reagan Center for Advocacy and Research. The self-same ultra rightwing organization that conducts robotic telephone push polls all over the country pushing their conservative agenda.

So you see, I really don’t care what or why the 3 commissioners voted the way that they did. I simply do not want my federal taxpayer dollars, and that is what this federal grant is, to be used to support a sectarian cause. It is in absolute violation of the Establishment Clause to the US Constitution.

And I really don’t want a cent of my taxpayer dollars to benefit an ultra-rightwing political organization.

There are lots of private foundations to support sectarian and rightwing causes. Let them handle all of that and let’s let the federal taxpayer money benefit non-sectarian apolitical causes.

This is America, after all. Not a sectarian state like the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Texas AG Defends State’s Moment of Silence Law

Well it looks like the Carrolton, Texas couple that sued their school district over Texas’ mandatory Moment of Silence that is observed after pledges of allegiance to both the American and Texas flags at the beginning of each school day have taken their case to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

At issue is whether the law, enacted in 2003 by the 78th legislature, whose origin is SB 83 authored by Senator Jeff Wentworth (R – San Antonio), violates the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.

AG Greg Abbott has filed a brief for Governor Perry that defends this event that must take place at the beginning of each school day in every classroom in Texas.

In essence, what the AG says is that the law does not violate the Establishment Clause because the mandatory moment of silence was meant for each student in Texas to set aside some time to reflect, meditate, or even pray, if it is their voluntary wish to. Exactly, it says this:

“During the one-minute period, each student may, as the student chooses, reflect, pray, meditate, or engage in any other silent activity that is not likely to interfere with or distract another student.”

In fact, the Texas AG now alleges that the Moment of Silence is indeed not a devious construct to get children to pray in school, but rather an instrument to promote Texas students’ patriotism.

From the AG’s brief:

“Senate Bill 83 is even easier to defend, because the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance ensures that the context for the subsequent minute of silence is patriotic and contemplative, not religious. In fact, of the twenty-six States that currently have moment-of-silence laws on the books, only Texas law specifically provides for the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance prior to the minute of silence.”

Now I am going to be very surprised if the 5th Circuit doesn’t smack AG Abbott about the face and head over this one. The Moment of Silence was meant to promote patriotism?

Quite frankly, I don’t give a rodent’s rear end what the Moment of Silence was or is supposed to accomplish. The truth is, as one who knows first hand, the Moment of Silence doesn’t do anything that the 78th Texas Legislature meant it to do, or didn’t mean it to do.

The truth is, the only thing that Texas’ mandatory Moment of Silence does is show just how far out of touch the Republican-dominated Texas legislature of 2003 was to what goes on in Texas classrooms.

Here is proof. Here is the rest of the law, the part that I left out in the citation above:

“Each teacher or other school employee in charge of students during that period shall ensure that each of those students remains silent and does not act in a manner that is likely to interfere with or distract another student.”

That is, this is another thing that the Texas legislature requires teachers to do: keep their kids from talking during the Moment of Silence.

Now, quite frankly, this is not a difficult task given the fact that half of these students have their heads buried in their arms as they try to catch up on the sleep they lost from their previous late evening to early morning waking hours playing Halo or Counterstrike, chatting, or visiting each others’ Facebook pages.

And if there is any violation of the silence stricture, one reminder per semester is usually enough to get the other half to toe the line. Because quite frankly, any teacher worth their salt is more than likely using this minute taking roll, silently, while the state fritters away this minute that would otherwise be devoted to instruction. In short, teachers are busy working during the Moment of Silence.

Taking roll, by the way, is a state- and district-mandated activity that has actual consequences, and teachers are very commonly monitored on the consistency of their roll-taking.

This is because student attendance is a money thing. The district gets money from the state based on how many students attend class that day. Accuracy in attendance-taking is essential.

Keeping the kids quiet during the Moment of Silence is not. Nor is doing this ever monitored in terms of teacher performance issues.

So, yes, during the Moment of Silence at the beginning of the day, that’s when attendance is taken. But to my knowledge, not one ounce of patriotism has been observed entering a student during this state-mandated daily event.

Maybe just one more game of Tetris on a given student’s TI-83 occurs, but patriotism . . . no.