The First Amendment Is Awesome- Until You Piss Me Off

Okay, so there was this art exhibit. It depicted Jesus "in a homosexual act". But we're America, right? We're not the Taliban! When people use their First Amendment rights to offend us, we defend their right to do so, even as we call their art trash, right?

No, of course not. We drive 690 miles to commit acts of vandalism. Because the First Amendment is awesome- until you piss me off.

Kathleen [Folden] heard of an “art” exhibit in Denver. This piece of ... ummm…“art” depicted Jesus engaged in a homosexual act. Kathleen thought to herself (I am mind paraphrasing here) “Oh no you didn’t. Not on my watch honey.”

So she put on her “tougher than nails” t-shirt and got in her truck. (I love that image) She drove the 690 miles to see the exhibit. She obtained her own art instruments, in this case a crowbar, and entered.

She broke the case with the crowbar and tore it to pieces saying “How can you desecrate my Lord?”

Now, the writer says that he does not support Kathleen's criminal act (btw, Kathleen, it's a fucking picture, not your omnipotent god. Get a grip.), but here's how he starts the article:

Bad. Shouldn’t do things like this. Bad. Not Funny.

Ok, maybe a little funny.

No, it's not funny at all, asshat. This is a civilized society and the laws apply equally to everyone. The First Amendment is for artists and for Christians and for everyone else. Laws against vandalism apply equally to us all. There's no special rules for offended Christians or less protection for provocative artists. Everyone. All of us. Created equal.

Not even a little bit funny.

pic link

Office of Spiritual Fitness

In what could be a chapter from The Handmaid's Tale, the U.S. military gave a consulting firm $3,500,000 to provide "spiritual fitness" services and required soldiers to attend evangelical Christian concerts at a cost of $30,000 - $100,000 per concert.

Another problem with these concerts, besides the issues like soldiers being punished for choosing not to attend them, is that they are run by the commanders, and not the chaplains' offices. It is absolutely permissible for a chaplain's office to put on a Christian concert. It is not permissible for the command to put on a Christian concert, or any other religious event. Having a religious concert series that is actually called and promoted as a Commanding General's Concert Series is completely over the top.

And then there's the cost. These concerts aren't just small events with local Christian bands. We're talking about the top, nationally known, award-winning Christian artists, with headline acts costing anywhere from $30,000 to $100,000, and even many of the opening acts being in the $10,000 range.

The cost of these concerts led MRFF's research department to start looking at some of the DoD contracts for other "spiritual fitness" events and programs, and what we found was astounding. One contract, for example, awarded to an outside consulting firm to provide "spiritual fitness" services, was for $3.5 million.

Unfuckingbelievable. I don't have anything clever to say about this. Millions of dollars of tax money spent on proselytizing to our troops, those same troops receiving inadequate care for their trauma and injury, those same troops protected by separation of church and state- you know, the Constitution they're supposed to be defending? Yeah, that.

For the Last *$!#^%*# Time, the First Amendment Does Not Say That

Dr. Laura Schlessinger said some very nasty things to a black caller, not the least of which was "Ni*ger, Ni*ger, Ni*ger, Ni*ger, Ni*ger, Ni*ger, Ni*ger." (No, context does not help that.)

Now Dr. Laura would like to whinge at us about what the First Amendment does not say.

“I want to regain my First Amendment rights,” she said. “I want to be able to say what’s on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I’m sort of done with that.”

You have a First Amendment right to say the n-word twenty-seven million times if you want to. What you do not have a First Amendment right to is to censor my reaction to your words. That's what Dr. Laura wants. She wants to be able to say any bigoted, nasty, horrible thing she can think of while none of us are allowed to react to it.

The First Amendment does not work that way and I don't know why I have to keep explaining this. And if the n-word seven times is what's "in [your] heart" and your definition of "helpful and useful", might I suggest a rousing game of Is This Flammable?

The First Amendment: A Review

I'm not sure why people have so much trouble understanding the free speech portion of the First Amendment. It's not long or complicated. In fact, the entire amendment is short and quite simply stated.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Do you see anything in there that protects anyone from the consequences of their speech? No, you don't. You are more than welcome to say any horrible, shocking, racist, sexist, otherwise bigoted crap you want to say, but you are in no way protected from my reaction to what you said. I am more than welcome to tell my boss exactly what I think of him- and he is equally welcome to fire me for doing so.

Or, as my mother used to say, you have the ability and the right to shove a potato chip up your nose, that doesn't make it a good idea. (I didn't realize until much later in life that my mother made up a lot of her "old sayings" on the spot.) Sure, John Stossel, you can announce to the world that you think people should be allowed to engage in institutionalized racism, and I have to right to call you a bigoted spleenweasel because of it.

At the time, racism was so pervasive that such an intrusive law may have been a good thing. But, as a libertarian, I say: Individuals should be surrounded by a sphere of privacy where government does not intrude. Part of the Civil Rights Act violates freedom of association. That's why I told Fox's Megyn Kelly, "It's time now to repeal that part of the law."

You can't say that in America?

Sure you can, asshat. Were you arrested for saying that? Were you thrown in prison? Were you executed? Clearly not. Clearly, you still have a platform from which to spew your stupidity. So, can you say that in America? Yes. Is it a good idea? Probably not. Those are two entirely separate issues, however.

The First Amendment allows you to say what you wish, but you're on your own when it comes to deciding whether or not you should.

It's So Hard to Be a Christian in America

establisment, first amendment, christian, lancaster,
You can't even, as an elected official, make certain nonChristians know how unwelcome they are without getting into trouble.

In his State of the City address last week, Mayor R. Rex Parris said
Lancaster [California] was “growing a Christian community.”

"And don't let anybody shy away from that,” he said to an audience of
ministers. “I need [Lancaster residents] standing up and saying we're a
Christian community, and we're proud of that."

What blows my mind is that obviously Mayor Parris, an elected representative of every citizen of Lancaster, thought it was appropriate to (a) support one religion over another, and (b) make certain every nonChristian in Lancaster knows exactly how he feels about them. Clearly, to Mayor Parris, nonChristians are people that don't belong in his city and the Constition can go suck it.

What's really interesting, though, is how Christians are trying to make this about the mean mean Muslims.

From the LA Times:

The Greater Los Angeles area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
sent a letter Friday to the department requesting an investigation into whether
Parris’ comments violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, which bans
the government from supporting or endorsing a religion.

Yeah, that is a good question. Clearly, the Mayor, in his capacity as a government official, is indeed supporting one religion over any other. So, yeah, unconstitutional.

Here's how it was reported by One News Now:

Two city officials in a California town are being targeted for possible hate
crimes over comments they made recently about the Christian and Muslim faiths.

That's odd. On the one hand, we have a question of constitutionality, on the other HAYT CRIMZZZZZZ!!!1!! Okay then.

I Normally Wouldn't Suggest This

catholic, politics, religion, first amendment,
but I guess we shouldn't elect Catholics for public office anymore. At least, that's the argument Reverand Thomas Tobin seems to be making.

“Any Catholic in public office – his first commitment has to be to his faith. Not just for a Catholic but for a member of any religious community, no commitment is more important than your commitment to your faith, because it involves your relationship with God.”

This is a secular country, with clear separation of church and state. Any politician, no matter where or how small an area (s)he represents, represents a variety of people: atheists, theists, deists, Catholics, Christians of every other stripe, muslims, hindus, buddhists, pagans, etc. But according Reverand Tobin, politicians shouldn't be concerned with the people they represent, they should be concerned with what the priest said in the homily that Sunday- and nothing else.

The last time the Catholic Church was in charge of countries, we had Crusades and Inquisitions. I just can't wait.

The First Amendment May Apply to You

first amendment, dawkins, richard, oklahoma, legislation, free speech, atheism, atheist, investigation
But it certainly doesn't apply to me.

I'm an atheist, you see. And as PZ Myers* pointed out, that makes Richard Dawkins, and me, criminals worthy of investigation by the Oklahoma legislature.


Sure enough, I just received confirmation today in a letter from the Open Records Office at the University of Oklahoma. The letter confirms that on the day of Dawkins' speech, Oklahoma State Representative Rebecca Hamilton requested substantial information relating to the speech from Vice President for Governmental Relations Danny Hilliard. Representative Hamilton's exhaustive request included demands for all e-mails and correspondence relating to the speech; a list of all money paid to Dawkins and the entities, public or private, responsible for this funding; and the total cost to the university, including, among other things, security fees, advertising, and even "faculty time spent promoting this event."

Rick Farmer, the director of committee staff for the Oklahoma House of Representatives, also wrote the University on March 12, requesting confirmation that Dawkins had indeed waived all compensation for the speech.

I wonder what the total cost of investigating a completely legal exercise of free speech will be?

You know what? Fuck it. If every homophobe in the country feels free to bother Vermont legislators on their vote, let's all hound the Oklahoma legislature about this aggregious waste of funds and antiAmerican suppression of free speech.

Oklahoma House of Representatives

Oklahoma Senate

Please, even if you hate Dawkins, even if you hate atheists, please let Oklahoma know that the First Amendment is for everyone, or someday, you may find that it isn't for anyone.

*I have such a crush on this man's brain.