Scientists in almost every discipline are, whether they choose to admit it or not, are natural splitters.  Every (well, almost every) budding palaeontologist is a splitter.  Why?  What better way to get one’s name noticed, to get that elusive grant or, even better, teaching position, than to have your very own genus chalked up on your wall of fame?  This means, of course, that species are sometimes described based upon flimsy evidence.  One of the most famous was Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus.  Othniel Marsh, one of the true giants of early palaeontology, described Apatosaurus ajax based on a very incomplete fossil in 1877.  Then, two years later, he described Brontosaurus excelsus  based on six skeletons and part of a skull.  A quarter century later, the species, which had been split, was lumped back together by Elmer Riggs.  Of course, Brontosaurus is such a beautiful name that we continue to use it, though it is a junior synonym.

Recently, three dinosaurs, Stygimoloch spinifer, Dracorex hoqwartsia, and Pachycephalosaurus, have been lumped back together as, possibly, three different ages of the same dinosaur.  There is still a great deal of controversy among palaeontologists as to whether the lumpers or the splitters are correct.  Hopefully, as more fossils are found and as the existing specimens are studied more closely, the lumpers and splitters will reach consensus as to the accuracy of the taxonomic consolidation.   And, most recently, Torosaurus and Triceratops, palaeontologists studying the ontogeny of the ceratopsians found in the Hell Creek formation, are lumping Torosaurus into the senior Triceratops. 

And (drum roll please) the Young Earth Cretinists Creationists couldn’t be happier.  And why would YECers give a flying fig about the taxonomic nomenclature of dinosaurs?  Because the creationists (as the esteemed P.Z. Myers puts it):

 . . . are overjoyed that combining two species into one means that “the Ark cargo was even lighter than previously thought”. There’s also some crowing about those arrogant scientists being wrong wrong wrongity-wrong wrong ding-dong! Gloating over an occasional error would be much more impressive if they also ever acknowledged the many times scientists have been right, and the creationists wrong.

 Creationists are the ultimate lumpers.  To deal with the millions of species, extant and extinct, creationists lump species together as ‘kinds.’  Which, as near as I can make out, means that only one pair of antelope were needed on the ark.  And then they radiated out into the hundred or so species of antelope.  Only one pair of beetle was needed.  And then they radiated out into the 450,000 or so described beetles.  Only one pair of cats, one pair of raptors, one pair of Tyrannasauridae, one pair of crocodylians, one pair of primate, one pair of monkey.  Nice bit of legerdemain.  Nice bit of dishonesty.  They even claim that, since Apatasaurus and Diplodocus are similar, are of the same family,

So Noah didn’t need to take an Apatosaurus pair and a Diplodocus pair on board the Ark; rather, just two representatives of their one kind along with all the other dinosaur kinds (Genesis 6:20)—of which it has been estimated previously there were only 55 kinds. (from Creation.com)

All to force the incredible complexity of the animal kingdom (and I’m not even including plants (how did they survive under all the water for that long?)) into the Bronze-age mythology of some Middle Eastern sheep herders.  All to force the magnificent tale of life on earth — Snowball Earth, Pangaea, meteor impacts, mass extinctions, 3,500,000 years of the history of life — into a 6,000 year absurdity of received wisdom.

Christianity is based on received wisdom.   The older the text, the more authoritative the message.  And they insist upon shoehorning science into the ideal of received wisdom.  This is why many creationists refer to those who accept the Theory of Evolution as the best available explanation for the diversity of life on earth as ‘Darwinists.’

Charles Darwin, building on the writings of older natural historians, developed the theory of evolution through natural selection.  It was, for the time, a brilliant theory.  But it was incomplete.  For the last 150 years, biologists, geneticists, geologists, palaeontologists, and other scientists have been experimenting and studying nature in order to either tease out the facts or disprove the theory.  In 150 years, the facts have added layer upon layer of support to the fact of evolution.

But every time scientists realize that new facts require a new understanding of the process, there are the creationists, pointing and laughing.  With an understanding of how science actually works (thesis – antithesis – synthesis (though it is never that simple)), the process is clear.  With the worship of received wisdom, any change in understanding brought about by new facts does not reinforce the theory, it invalidates the theory.  The messy and confusing path of science is anathema to True Believers^TM, raised on the pablum of received wisdom passed through a designated Authority Figure ^TM, with no allowance for questioning the theories of the past. 

The lumpers of modern literalist Christianity are so sure that they, and only they, have the answer to life, the universe, and everything (it is 42, you morons), that they cheerfully ridicule the splitters.  The splitters, these learned men, these scientists who have created the modern world with vaccines, computers, cell phones, cars, airplanes, and television.

This hypsilophondontid lived in the early Cretaceous in what is now Victoria, Australia.  It was the size of a grey kangaroo, and had huge eyes.  And they lived at a time when the area was completely within the Arctic Circle, so they had to tolerate (or at least cope with) extremely long nights.  Long nights as in months long nights. 

Notice the name, however.  It is named for Qantas airlines.  It honours the airlines support of dinosaur education at the Melbourne Museum.  And I have no problem with this.  I think it is a great idea.  However, as I continued my evening constitutional, I began to muse (out loud) about other possible corporate sponsorships of  dinosaurs. 

For instance, Coca Cola could sponsor a dinosaur — Cocacolasaurus.  Which, at some future date, could be cloned.  The clone could be called the Cokezerosaurus.

An anti-gay corporation (like Papa John’s) could sponsor a Nosaurass. Or the same creature could be sponsored by the makers of KY.

KMart could sponsor a Bluelightasaurus.

Walmart could sponsor Rollbaccasaurus.

Boeing could sponsor a Dreamlinersaurus.

McDonalds could sponsor a McRaptor.

Burger King could sponsor a Burgersaurus Rex.

Union Pacific could sponsor a Bigboysaurus.

Halliburton could sponsor a coprolite.

Even the government could get involved.  The United States Postal Service could sponsor Oopsysaurus. 

The NSA could sponsor Doyouthinkheheardus.

I actually think that corporate sponsorship of research not related to their field is a great idea, especially for sciences with little direct monetary return.  However, I also know Americans.  And we would, without doubt, take it to the illogical extreme.  Just picture the dinosaur the DiscoInstitute would name.

Any other ideas?

Democracy is the philosophy which holds the United States of America together.  The rules apply to all.  We all pay taxes¹, taxes which we, through our elected representatives, have agreed to pay as an admission fee for a civilized country.  We all obey the same laws, laws which we, through our elected representatives, have agreed to obey to make our lives safer.  Yet one of our major political parties, the Grand Old Party, the Republican Party, is attempting to short circuit this grand experiment in self-government.   

Democracy cannot be enforced at the point of a bayonet².  It is a social and governmental compact to which we, as citizens and residents, have agreed.  The idea that all men are created equal, that there are certain inalienable rights which apply to all, requires fealty to the idea that we all must follow the same rules, tolerate the same red tape, stand in the same lines.  We expect there to be no special privileges such as the hochadel of the 1600s enjoyed, such as the lords of England enjoyed, such as the party members of the USSR enjoyed.

But democracy also requires three basic conditions — literacy, free time, and wealth.  And, since the Reagan Revolution of the early 1980s, what has been under attack by the new conservatives?  Education and middle class wealth, and the free time that wealth created.

Literacy is a requirement for a working democracy.  The ability to read and understand regulations, rules, laws and issues is essential.  If Americans lose the skills needed to understand important issues, and the ability to understand that which keeps our democracy running, democracy as we know it will not survive.  Education is the key to understanding.  Education is under attack by the new conservatives.  

The new conservatives, wholeheartedly supported by their conservative religious cohorts, are systematically undermining the science curriculum within our public school systems.  Attempts to force creationism (most recently under the guise of Intelligent Design) into the schools has destroyed the underpinnings of our science curriculum.  By substituting ‘goddidit’ for a rational theory which explains the physical observations, the right created an environment in which good teachers, teachers who actually understand their chosen subject, are forced out of public schools.  This insertion of blind belief into our science curriculum makes it far more difficult for American students to join the scientific community.

The new conservatives, wholeheartedly supported by their conservative religious cohorts, are systematically undermining the history and social studies curriculum within our public school systems.  Texas has removed from the state education standards references to some of the minds which helped to create a working democracy.  Nationwide, attempts to force the Christian Nation idea into America’s public schools undermines the study of history and makes it far more difficult for students to understand how we solve problems.  Without that understanding, an understanding of the philosophical roots of our chosen government, a person’s ability to be a full citizen is lessened.

Systematic underfunding of our education system, including fighting tooth and nail any plan to make higher education more affordable, coupled with the undermining of effective curriculum, is pushing American public education toward the edge.  Will America allow our education system to be pushed over the edge into ineffectiveness?

Democracy requires the existence of the wealth which creates  free time.  To fully engage in democratic discourse, a citizen must have the temporal space in which to pursue the needs and ideas of one’s community.  Without time, we are reduced to mouthing 10-second sound bites and short protest phrases.  Unions, and the regulation of business,  had created a workforce with the requisite free time to become fully engaged.  Regulation and unions are under attack by the new conservatives.

Unions fought (literally in many cases) for the 40-hour work week.  Unions fought for vacation time.  Unions fought for minimum wages and the right to unionize.  But in the last 30 years, we have seen the decimation of unions.  What few laws existed which protected a worker’s right to unionize were gutted.  Mega companies devoted to the worship of lower costs have helped to push high wage jobs overseas to low wage sweatshops thus destroying the jobs of union members.  The middle class factory worker has become an endangered species in the new America.

Beginning in the early 1900s, the federal government began to regulate business.  The creation and enforcement of laws regarding worker safety, wages, hours, and finances created a stable business world in which companies could make money while still providing workers with a livable life.  And part of that livable life was free time.  Time one could fill with political pursuits. 

The deregulation and union-busting by both Republican governments and by their big-business allies has put the squeeze on the American middle class.  In the past 30 years, income for working families has barely edged higher (though it was dead flat for the past 8 years) while the income of the richest Americans has skyrocketed.  The higher cost of education, housing, fuel, food and medical care coupled with the stagnation of wages has forced American workers to work longer hours, take fewer vacations, and has limited their free time.  Less money means less time to support the issues of concern within a community.  Without that time, without the ability to be effectively politically active.  Will we continue to remove the majority of Americans from political discourse.

The policies pursued by the GOP for the past 30 years,  policies of lower taxes on the rich, business deregulation, union-busting, the encouragement of overseas manufacturing, the denigration of knowledge, the gutting of public funding for schools and colleges, have all led the American middle class into an increasingly uncomfortable vice.  Fewer educational opportunities, fewer protection of hard won wage and time protections mean we must work more hours just to stay even.  And working more hours means less time to engage within the democratic process. 

As the GOP continues to attack education — the education which supplies the social literacy needed for an effective democracy — our political discourse will decline.  As the GOP continues to attack the economic freedom of the middle class — the economic freedom which supplies the time to be politically active — our ability to fight for a government of the people, by the people and for the people, will be undermined.  Which will allow the Republicans (and the Democrats who are so afraid of Faux News that they are willing to betray their philosophy) and their wealthy supporters to write laws favouring the corporation over the individual, the corporation over the environment, the corporation over safety, the corporation over the consumer, the corporation over the government.  It will be a democracy in name, but not in fact.

——————

1.  Yes, everyone pays taxes.  Even when I did not pay federal income taxes, I still payed state income taxes, fuel taxes, and sales taxes.  The Earned Income Tax credit helps working families with some of those taxes, but everyone pays taxes.  And the working poor pay a far higher percentage of their disposable (after living expenses) income than the rich.

2.  Germany, at the end of World War II, was redemocratized at the point of a bayonet.  But Germany already had a tradition of democracy, created by wealth and literacy.  Japan had less of a tradition of democracy, but the literacy and (potential) wealth was already there.  These two examples have enough ‘yeah, buts’ that I still feel confident saying that democracy cannot be forced on an unwilling or unready people.

Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life

By Atheist Ireland | Published: June 29, 2010

The recent Gods and Politics conference in Copenhagen adopted the following Declaration on Religion in Public Life. The conference was the first European event of Atheist Alliance International, and was co-hosted by AAI and the Danish Atheist Society.

We, at the World Atheist Conference: “Gods and Politics”, held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows:

• We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.
• We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.
• We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.
• We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.
• We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.
• We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.
• We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.
• We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.
• We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.
• We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths.  We oppose state funding for faith schools.
• We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

Adopted by the conference, Copenhagen, 20 June 2010.

Please circulate this as widely as you can among people and groups who advocate a secular society.

So how many American politicians would be willing to sign on to this?  Even part of it?  Atheists, nonreligious, freethinkers, rationalists and agnostics make up around 15% of America’s citizens.  I would hazard a guess that less than 1% of our elected representatives would agree with even a few of these rather common sense affirmations.

What to do, what to do.

Wait, I’ll make a chipotle sauce.  And here it is:

Sweet, Smokey and Spicy Chipotle Sauce

1 22 oz can crushed tomatoes
1/4 to 1/2 cup minced chipotle peppers
1 Tablespoon ancho chili powder
4 Tablespoons honey
3 cloves garlic, finely minced or run through a garlic press
1 Tablespoon minced cilantro (optional)
1 teaspoon salt
1/4 cup boiling water

Place the chipotle peppers in a heat-proof container and pout the boiling water over them.  Let it sit for 30 minutes.  Drain off any water that hasn’t been absorbed.

Heat the tomatoes, garlic, cilantro and salt in a pot on the stove (don’t use aluminum).  When it reaches  a light boil, add the chipotle, ancho, and honey.  Let it simmer for about 30 to 45 minutes, stirring frequently, until the sauce has thickened.  Let it cool and store in the refrigerator in a glass jar.

I’ve used this as a barbecue sauce for pork and chicken done out on the grill. Or add a tablespoon or two to your homemade guacamole.  It also tastes great with some good corn chips.  It is sweet, smokey and spicy all at the same time.

Enjoy.

Marriage is, ultimately, a civil contract in which the partners merge their economic interests — taxes, home and car ownership — and (presumably) creates an obligation on the part of both partners to provide, financially, for any creations of the marriage through procreation or adoption. The actual plumbing has zilch to do with the civil contract (and yes, it is a civil contract: as I have written before, (((Wife))) and I were married in her parent’s living room by a Justice of the Peace with no involvement by any religious group (organized or other) and no reference at all to god(s) or ‘holy’ texts).

If a couple (or polycouple (if I may coin a word here)) want to add another layer and involve a church, by all means, go right ahead if it makes you feel happy to imaginarilly bless your marriage by an imaginary sky daddy. Of course, if you plumbing (or polycouploid joining) does not concur with the mythology, do not expect a church to be forced to recognize your union.

However, with or without the ‘blessings’ of mythology, the civil contract still exists and the state (as well as employers) must recognize that the two or more people who have come together as ‘married’ now, in certain limited economic and civil situations, are recognized as a unit. This includes rights such as hospital visitation, burial preferences, schooling, property ownership, and right of inheritance. Notice that all of these civil unitary situations are non-religious (a veneer of religion can be placed over most of them, but it is not necessary) in nature.

The state does have an interest in marriage. Specifically, the state’s interest is the same as any other civil contract — the state exists as a legal recourse in the event of dissolution of said contract or disagreements by the parties involved regarding the specific legal rights and duties of those who have signed the civil contract.

When a right-wing religious asshat starts spouting off about the sanctity of marriage, the tradition of marriage, the holiness of marriage, the blessings of marriage and all that other claptrap, I always feel queasy. They seem to be saying that marriage is an inherently religious act, that without religion, the marriage itself does not exist. Which is, as I hope I have pointed out above, pure and unadulterated bullshit.

California, please recognize that marriage is a civil contract and that the pearl-clutching of some Christianist asshats is not enough to deny human rights to human beings.

————

I have had an incredible case of writer’s block (along with sprained ankle and lots of life hitting me).  I wrote the above as a comment on the Endless Thread at Pharyngula and was so impressed by my rant that I decided it needed to hit my blog.  Will that solve my writer’s block?  Hopefully.  We’ll see.

Yes, you read that right. 

And how do we know?  God’s/god’s/gods’ own prophet Rush Limbaugh says so (transcript from truthwinsout):

You know, a couple of days after the health care bill had been signed into law Obama ran around all over the country saying, “Hey, you know, I’m looking around. The earth hadn’t opened up. There’s no Armageddon out there. The birds are still chirping.” I think the earth has opened up. God may have replied. This volcano in Iceland has grounded more airplanes — airspace has more affected — than even after 9/11 because of this plume, because of this ash cloud over Northern and Western Europe. At the Paris airport they’re telling people to head to the train station to catch trains out of France, and when people get to the train station they’re telling people, “There aren’t any seats until at least April 22nd,” basically a week from now. It’s got everybody in a shutdown. Earth has opened up. I don’t know whether it’s a rebirth or Armageddon. Hopefully it’s a rebirth, God speaking.

Damn.  I thought God/god/gods were busy finding the girl in Florida.  Can he/she/it multitask?

Besides, I thought it was always the fault of gays when there are earthquakes.  Or hurricanes.  Or terrorist attacks.

They (who) seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers call this a new order.  It is not new and it is not order.
                   Franklin Delano Roosevelt

FDR knew his history.   He understood that authoritarianism pulls society backwards in time.  Today we are faced with  authoritarianism – both economic and religious.  Both seek to force America into the past — a past of rule by a few.  And the new authoritarians use fear, naked unabashed fear, to trick the majority into vesting more and more and more power in the hands of the already rich and powerful.

Xenophobia seems to be the most powerful weapon in the authoritarian’s arsenal.   Primitive fear of the other is potent — fear of gays, fear of colour, fear of other gods.

Fear of Islam has been used to justify warrantless wiretaps of American citizens and American residents.  Habeus corpus, show me the body, is now a dead issue in any situation involving national security (What is national security?  Whatever the President decides.) thanks to successful mass murder.  And any enemy of the authoritarians is labeled as an ally of the terrorists, an ally of Islam, an ally of  evil.

Fear of those with dark skin is exploited to demonize immigrants — documented or not — leading to assault and murder.  The authoritarians use this fear to encourage personal greed — don’t pay taxes, the evil government will just give it the undeserving poor (who are, disproportionately, minorities).  And any foe of the authoritarians is labeled as a liberal, a progressive, a communist, a socialist, an ally of evil.

Fear of science, headlined by evolution denialism, is used to put more money into the pockets of the wealthy.  That human beings are, through the release of billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere, having an effect on the climate is an established fact (researchers continue argue over the details, not that it is happening) is muddied by energy companies who pour millions into anti-science think tanks.  Science is denigrated at every opportunity.  And any foe of the authoritarians is excoriated as anti-Christian, anti-free economy, and, of course, an ally of evil.

Fear of members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community is utilized as both a fundraising tool and a wedge to divide Americans.  Authoritarians use this primitive fear, this fear of difference, to justify packing courts with troglodytes willing to allow Christianism to take over governments, to excuse violence, bigotry and murder, and to convince voters to cast ballots which will economically disadvantage the one casting the vote.  Any foe of the authoritarians is cast as a pawn of the gay agenda, an anti-Christian (and thus anti-American) activist, an ally of evil.

Who are these authoritarians?  Are they the religious right, the neoconservatives, the reactionaries?  To a point, yes.  But they are not the ultimate source.  Who does?  Who benefits?

The funding, the creation, of this latest iteration of reactionary backlash is the same group that has been behind it damn near every single time — the malefactors of great wealth.  By blocking rights for GLBT citizens and residents, billions of dollars can be raised to support the authoritarian candidates.  By casting doubts on the reality behind anthropogenic global warming, the rich, especially the energy companies and their investors, can get richer.  By denigrating science, any research-based conservationism and regulation can be minimized.  By demonizing immigrants, the wealthy elite can shift the blame for low wages and no benefits from the owners to the new immigrants (whom, of course, the wealthy elite use as cheap labour).  Fear of Islam, fear of terrorism (but only brown terrorists), fear of violence has allowed the authoritarians to restrict the right of free speech, the right to protest, the rights enumerated in the Constitution.  And the GOP, the Grand Old Party, is trying to ride fear back into power.

The authoritarians seek to return to a simpler time.  A time of strong churches (but only the right churches), a time of brutal and swift ‘justice’, a time of all the rights a person can buy.  They seek to establish systems of government based on the subordination of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers call this a new order.  It is not new and it is not order.    And it is not that for which America stands.

We are married (first (and only)), I have two kids (older boy, younger girl (same father and mother and born more than 9 months after our wedding), four cats, five fish, a snail and two rats.  We own our home (well, we actually lease it from the bank, but close enough), have a minivan, we rarely drink, pay our taxes and don’t cheat.  So why would we scare the shit out of people like Palin?  Because we are atheists and we are boringly normal. 

My best friend takes vacations in Italy and England, drives a Lexus, is extremely active in the local Catholic Church, owns his own home, takes care of his elderly parents, and is active in both the local political and arts scene.  So why would Al (name changed) scare the shit out of Rick Warren?  Because he is gay and is boringly normal. 

The radical religious right, in many, if not all, of the various incarnations — the American Family Association, the Roman Catholic Church, Focus on the Family, the Faith and Freedom Institute, the Christian Coalition, the Catholic League, American Life League, Personhood USA, Roe-No-More Ministries, etc. ad nauseum – tend to be xenophobic.  Fear of the other — atheists, gays, Muslims, liberals, progressives, Europeans, women — feeds the tribal identity. 

Yet the others are both the enemy and the ally.  The ‘others’ are seen as a threat to their worldview because the Bible either shows them in a negative light (read that as abomination) or doesn’t even mention the subject which (I guess) automatically means it or they are of Satan.  These others, though, are also informal allies — they are the enemy and, as such, create opportunities for fundraising and feeding the fears of the base.  If these ‘others’ did not exist, the leaders of the radical religious right would have to create them (much as their philosophical ancestors created god(s), devils, demons and the very concept of hell). 

These individuals and groups against their version of god(s) and thus, by definition, are allies of Satan.  Negotiating with evil is not an acceptable option.  Giving ground in any aspect of the self-proclaimed culture wars is seen as a defeat of their interpretation of god(s).  Which, of course, can lead to situations in which charity organizations are punished, or created controversies, no matter how idiotic, take on a life of their own. 

In Oklahoma, the state legislature has apparently decided, almost unanimously, to abandon useful legislation such as jobs, education, transportation or health care.  Instead, they are tossing red meat to the radical religious base (from the Oklahoma House‘s web site): 

The proposed amendment would prohibit all Oklahoma courts from considering the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, even in cases of first impression. 

“Unfortunately, some judges in other states and on the federal bench have begun to cite international law in their court decisions, effectively undermining our own democratic system of government,” said Duncan, a Sand Springs Republican and attorney who chairs the House Judiciary Committee. “Our nation’s laws were developed through a democratic process and should not be undermined by haphazard reliance on foreign rulings developed in autocratic societies. Oklahoma court decisions should be based on the U.S. Constitution, Oklahoma Constitution, and our state and national laws – period.” 

The proposed amendment declares that courts “shall not consider international law or Sharia Law.” 

The mind boggles at the amount of time the Oklahoma legislature spent solving this non-existent problem.  I’m also curious what would happen if, say, a contract entered into in a foreign country came up in a lawsuit. 

Of course, they weren’t happy with just that;  they then decided to nullify federal law (I could have sworn we nullified nullification back in the 1860s).  Specifically hate crime legislation. Of course, they had no problem with federal hate crime legislation when it protected Christians, but protecting all humans?  including the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender humans?  In order to prevent a good Christian gaybasher being prosecuted, the “state would not cooperate with any federal hate crimes investigation and even mandating that files of potential hate crimes be withheld or destroyed so that they cannot be used to assist in any such investigation” (from RightWingWatch).  And they fucked it up: 

A bill intended to remove hate crime protections from gays and lesbians actually takes away rights from everyone else because of a “legislative error,” according to one lawmaker. 

Oklahoma State Senate Minority Leader Andrew Rice, D-Oklahoma City, said when the Senate passed Senate Bill 1965 on March 10, it eliminated hate crime protections for race and religion. 

The bill states local law enforcement agencies should not enforce any sections of federal law under hate crimes statutes listed under Title 18 U.S. Code Section 245 unless they are in correlation with Oklahoma’s hate crimes laws. 

But the protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes, which passed Congress last year, are not listed under Section 245, but Section 249 

“The bill in its current form doesn’t take away rights from gays and lesbians,” Rice said. “It takes away rights for religion and race.”  (My emphasis) 

Read that again.  Rice is actually upset that the law does not take rights from gays and lesbians.  He is upset that the law doesn’t take rights away from people he perceives as ‘other.’  I guess to him the Constitution really is ‘just a piece of paper.’  Rights are only for people like him. 

Oklahoma is not alone, though.  In DC, Catholic Charities refuses to cover any new spouses because human rights were extended to the dreaded ‘other’.  Up in Maine, the rights of GLBT Mainiacs was put up for vote.  And, since a bare majority voted to discriminate, the archdiocese is cutting off funding for charities which supported human rights (from the Portland Press Herald): 

PORTLAND – A social service agency’s support for same-sex marriage has cost it local and national funding from the Catholic Church’s anti-poverty program.  Preble Street’s Homeless Voices for Justice program has lost $17,400 this year and will lose $33,000 that it expected for its next fiscal year. 

Officials with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland and the Washington-based Catholic Campaign for Human Development say that Preble Street violated its grant agreement by supporting Maine’s “No on 1″ campaign last fall. 

 Luckily, Maine is a little less extreme than Oklahoma.  Others are stepping in to help (BRAVO!!!!): 

Catholics for Marriage Equality has begun an effort to replace the lost funding by raising $17,400 for Homeless Voices for Justice. Anne Underwood, a co-founder of the group that advocates for same-sex marriage, said Bishop Richard Malone is punishing the homeless because of politics. 

“This is petty vindictiveness,” she said. “After the election is over, suddenly the money is revoked from poor people because of a political opinion held by the bishop.” 

Underwood said that many Catholics in Maine will now think twice before donating money to the church to help fight poverty. “People who are homeless should not be used in political games,” she said. 

Petty vindictiveness pretty much sums it up. 

Sometimes, though, the radical religious right’s crusades become downright laughable.  Up in Missoula, Montana, a group is mobilizing to fight an anti-discrimination bill working up through the city council.  The worry?  That men might dress up in dresses to peak into ladies restrooms.  Even funnier?  The name:  NotMyBathroom.com.  (From their website): 

NOTMYBATHROOM.COM is an action to defeat Missoula anti-discrimination ordinance.  A review of the  ordinance that will be voted on in the Missoula City Council on April 12^th reveals the extreme nature of the ordinance and the effect it will have on businesses, churches and virtually all organizations in Missoula City limits. In addition to great expense for businesses to provide toilet facilities, with the additional peril of lawsuits and loss of business licenses, it could also force ministers to perform homosexual marriages.  In addition, Missoula ’s taxpayers will probably find themselves paying large attorney fees and court costs when this unconstitutional ordinance is challenged.  This could also force the Boy Scouts of American to have homosexual Boy Scout leaders and force them to allow girls to be part of the troops – even though the US Supreme Court has ruled against these requirements.   

<<snip>> 

This type of law, mentioned in the email below, is on the docket in Missoula and plans are to move it to  Bozeman.  Don’t allow men in women’s bathrooms, lockers or shower areas in these cities or yours.  Read about the rape by a man in a girls bathroom. The champions of the Homosexual Agenda in Montana, the Montana ACLU, have announced plans to take this ordinance all over our state.  This is the place to stop their plans.  

Bathroom safety and the ability of the Missoula city council to overrule the United States Supreme Court are fueling this bit of weapons-grade right-wing xenophobia.  According to the Missoulian, 

The Web site notes 17 affiliated groups but spokesman Dallas Erickson of Stevensville said most of the entities would remain nameless this week. 

“We probably won’t talk about names because some of them don’t want their names revealed,” Erickson said. 

Erickson represents HOME – Help Our Moral Environment – and has long opposed obscenity and pornography in Montana. He said HOME counts 3,000 members statewide. 

So far, the only other group willing to identify itself as affiliated with NotMyBathroom.com is Concerned Women For America, said Erickson. CWA representatives already have come out against the proposed ordinance. 

Seventeen groups and only two are willing to go on record?  It must be all that anti-Christian persecution we keep hearing about that keeps them quiet. 

Our schools are falling apart.  Bridges are falling down.  Cities, counties and states are laying off thousands to balance budgets.  We are involved in two voluntary wars.  Our financial system is now in the hands of a dozen companies too big to fail.  And these idiots are scared of Sharia law in Oklahoma?  They explicitly say they want to take away rights from some Americans?  The Catholic Church wants to punish spouses and the homeless because they oppose gay marriage (but are (apparently) quite okay with adult clergy sexually abusing children)?  And a self-proclaimed morality group wants to protect the sanctity of our bathrooms?  

The question, then, is whether or not America will succumb to tribalism? Will we continue to fear the ‘other’?  Or will we become the nation we imagine ourselves to be — a nation based on the rule of law and a beacon of reason and freedom for the world? 

At this point, my bet would be on the shitty choice.