Religion in the News: October 2003

Visited by a Prince
Secrets of the Universe On Sale
When in Rome . . .
When in France . . .
When in Muskogee . . .
When in Sane . . .
Lieberman: We’re Inherently Incestuous
Waging a War of Words
Odd Man (Sour Puss) Out
Promoting Movies in Public Parks is Unconstitutional
God Hates Perverts
The Power of Prayer
Happy Holy Days
Open Mouth; Trip on Tongue; Fall in Goop

October was one busy month for Religion in the News. A Prince tried to get a Jewish couple to join an army of door-to-door Sellers of Salvation. The timeless secrets of the universe went on sale for just $200 down. Authorities clamped down on school girls wearing scarves. A U.S. Senator suggested that celibacy is the only way to avoid incest. There was talk of Muslims mounting an assault on Italy. Two clerics who witnessed the same event couldn’t agree on what happened. People argued about who God hates, and what it might take to defeat the Principality of Darkness.

Prince Roger Nelson (the artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince) was reported to have visited the home of a Jewish couple in Eden Prairie, Minnesota on Yom Kippur. The purpose of the surprise visit? To convert the couple. To what? To Jehovah’s Witnesses.

On 12 October, the Minneapolis Star Tribune ran a story about the surprise visit to the home of Mr. and Mrs. So-and-So. Mrs. So-and-So – identified in the story only as Rochelle – said that she and her husband were watching a football game (the Minnesota Vikings v. the Atlanta Falcons) on the afternoon of 5 October when the doorbell rang. Her husband answered the door and yelled “Prince is at the door.”

Rochelle responded with an incredulous, “No Way!”

But way it was. There was Nelson and an associate. Rochelle told the paper that she initially imagined the two might be asking to use the So-and-So’s house for a music video, but she quickly realized that Nelson was doing the sort of thing that Michael Jackson used to do: trying to recruit Jehovah’s Witnesses. According to Rochelle: “They start in on this Jehovah’s Witnesses stuff. I said, ‘You know what? You’ve walked into a Jewish household, and this is not something I’m interested in.’ He says, ‘Can I just finish?’” According to Rochelle, it took Nelson 25 minutes to finish. Then he and his associate left. Rochelle said the two left in a waiting car, and didn't appear to stop at any other houses on the block. “It was so bizarre, you would have just laughed,” she said.

Paul McCartney’s daughter, Stella, is a fashion designer. She’s also a friend of Madonna Ciccone, the pop star. Britney Spears is also a (very close) friend of Madonna’s. What do the three have in common? Among other things, each of the three has been seen wearing a red thread on one wrist. The significance? It means they’re into Kabbalah. And Kabbalah is . . . ?

Depends on who you ask. To some, it’s a form of medieval Jewish mysticism. Some say it’s magic; some say it’s a form of numerology; there are those who say it’s a philosophy. According to the folks at the Kabbalah Centre in Jerusalem, “Kabbalah predates any religion or theology. It was given to mankind by the Creator.” Not only that, but Kabbalah is “older than time itself” and contains “the secret of all secrets concerning the origins of our souls” as well as “the mysteries of all mysteries.”

Whatever Kabbalah is, it is largely based on a text known as the Zohar. The Zohar is an extensive commentary on the Pentateuch. Some scholars believe it was written in the 13th century by Moses de Leon, an author of things occult. Others believe it was written over an extended period of time and had many contributors. Devotees believe it was written by Simeon ben Yohai, a rabbi who lived in the 2nd century, and that what he wrote he got from God.

So, why is Kabbalah in the news? Is it because Ciccone’s book, The English Roses, is reputed to be based on Kabbalah? Is it because Demi Moore has been seen wearing a red thread on her wrist? Is it because Michael Jackson and Elizabeth Taylor and Diane Keaton and Goldie Hawn and Naomi Campbell have been seen wearing red threads designed to ward off evil spirits?

Or is it because Jerry Hall – former fashion model and former wife to Mick Jagger – has renounced Kabbalah after the folks at the Kabbalah Centre asked her to get her friends (some of whom are quite wealthy) to give 10% of their income to the Centre? Is it because more and more Gentiles are visiting new-age synagogues to study what’s being called Jew-Bu, a blend of Jewish mysticism and Buddhism?

Or is it none of the above?

Note: The book (Ciccone’s, not the Zohar) has been on the New York Times’ best-seller list for six weeks. The Kabbalah Centre sells it for $19.95. The Kabbalah Centre also sells a complete version of the Zohar for $491, but if you buy it now, you can get it for $415. There’s also a special payment plan that let’s you get your hands on the secrets of the universe for just $200 down.

Zogby Poll

On 4 October, the results of a poll conducted by Zogby International and the University of Rochester’s religion department revealed that, as John Zogby – president of the polling firm – sees it, “Religion is far more important to people than politics.” Not only that, but it’s politics – not religion – that people see as the bigger source of violence, and a bigger role for religion would help society. Details and results of the poll are available at Zogby’s Web site.

It was back in the 1920s that this law was enacted in Italy: each public school classroom had to have a crucifix prominently displayed. That was at a time when the Roman Catholic church was still the official church of all Italy, and almost all Italians were Italian.

No more. Italy is now home to almost 1,000,000 Muslims – none of whom are Catholic – and their numbers are growing rapidly. And it shouldn’t come as a big surprise that the Muslim parents of school children aren’t thrilled with a cross in every class.

On 25 October, an Italian judge issued a ruling that rattled much of the nation. He ruled that the crosses must be removed from the classrooms in the elementary school in the town of Ofena, not far from Rome.

Adel Smith – the Muslim parent of two children attending the elementary school in Ofena – wanted a Muslim symbol displayed next to the crosses in his childrens’ classrooms. The school turned down his request, so Smith decided to take the issue to court.

The judge decided that there should be no religious symbols in the classrooms. He ordered the crosses removed. Why? Because they reflect the government’s desire “to place the Catholic religion at the center of the universe in terms of absolute truth.” That might have been OK back in the 1920s, but it’s not been OK since 1984 when Italy gave up on having an official church and an official religion.

After the judge issued his ruling, politicians and priests began to voice their discomfort. Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, Italy’s president, said, “The crucifix has always been considered not only a distinctive sign of a particular religious credo, but above all a symbol of the values that are at the base of our Italian identity.” Others – including the mayor of Ofena – said the cross had been around so long and was so pervasive (a large cross greets visitors entering the town and one can be found prominently displayed in any of the town’s public buildings) that it had become a cultural symbol, that it was no longer just a religious symbol.

Of course, the pope weighed in on the dispute. “The cross of Christ is an eloquent symbol of civilization and of love, giving light, comfort and hope, for all mankind and for all time,” he told an audience in Saint Peter’s Square. Parents of the school children in Ofena held a ‘hands off our crucifix’ vigil in front of the school. The judge who issued the ruling began receiving death threats.

There were grumblings about “The Islamic Invasion of Italy,” a reference to the steady rise in the percentage of Muslims among Italians. Giuseppe Pisanu, the interior minister voiced his displeasure: “I am offended as both a Christian and an Italian citizen.” Pisanu went further, suggesting that it was about time to stop the surge of immigrants: “We fear for our security, for our identity, for our jobs and social stability.”

Smith, the man who put the whole controversy into motion, is the president of the Union of Muslims of Italy, and his critics say he’s made provocative statements; for instance, he’s said things in support of Osama bin Laden. Smith is now faced with the prospect of being prosecuted for insulting the Catholic faith. It turns out that he appeared on a TV show two years ago and called the crucifix a “corpse in miniature.” Criticism of any religion is a crime in Italy, as it is in France.

For now, the crucifix remains in the classrooms where Smith’s children learn how to read and write. After the order to remove the crucifix was issued, the Italian government filed an appeal. The next hearing into the matter is scheduled for 19 November.

It wasn’t all that long ago that women in the U.S. and Europe commonly wore scarves. You don’t see women wearing scarves much any more: not unless they’re Muslim. When a Muslim girl reaches puberty, it’s time for her to start wearing a scarf whenever she’s in public. The idea is that men shouldn’t see women’s faces. They shouldn’t be attracted to women based on their looks. In some places, it’s a criminal offense for a woman (Muslim or otherwise) to go out in public without her hair and her face covered, only her eyes visible to strangers.

France is not such a place. In the public schools in France, students are forbidden to wear anything that smacks of religion.

Last September, two girls – sisters attending public school in a suburb near Paris – were suspended because they kept wearing scarves in school. On 10 October, the girls were expelled because of their refusal to follow French law.

It’s an interesting story. The girls – Lila and Alma Levy – weren’t raised to be Muslims; they received no religious instruction at home. Their father describes himself as “a Jew without a god.” Their mother is a Christian from North Africa. So how do the girls wind up following Islamic law? Three years ago, Muslim classmates of the girls found out that their last name was Levy, a sure sign that the girls were Jewish. They started taunting and harassing the girls. In addition to being called “Dirty Jewesses” the girls were beaten by their devout classmates.

In response, the girls adopted Islamic customs. They refused to eat pork. They learned Arabic and studied the Koran. They started dressing like their devout classmates, all for the sake of being left alone. School officials told the girls to lose the garb, but they refused, and were suspended. On 10 October, the school board met to consider the situation. They listened to the two girls, and then the board decided that – whatever their religion – they had to follow rules, just like everyone else.

The school board in Muskogee, Oklahoma suspended an 11-year-old girl because she refused to remove her scarf. The girl – Nashala Hern – said that removing her scarf in school would violate her religious beliefs.

The school district has a dress code that prohibits students from wearing “headgear.” When school started in September, Hern wore her scarf. A few weeks into the school year – on 11 September, it so happens – she was told to lose the scarf. She refused, and – on 1 October – she received a three-day suspension for violating the dress code. When she returned to school, she was still wearing her scarf and received a five-day suspension.

The school says the girl isn’t being singled out because of her religion: she’s being treated just like any other student. The school’s attorney says that if a Jewish student showed up wearing a yarmulke, he would be treated just the same: remove the headgear or leave school. The superintendent of Muskogee’s schools asks what would happen if some satanist showed up at school with religiously-inspired attire. If Hern gets to wear her religious garb, then the school has to allow any student to wear any religious garb, says the superintendent.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations got into the mix and guess what? After mentioning the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion), the school decided not to press the issue. Hern can wear her scarf to school.

The restriction on headgear dates back to 1997 and was implemented to curb gang activity.

The Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Savannah, Georgia is beautiful, magnificent, awesome. That’s how visitors describe it. The natives says it’s the most impressive building in all of Georgia.

The cathedral was completed in 1896, but its history is 100 years older than the building. In 1799, the people of Savannah reserved a plot of land so the Congregation of Saint John the Baptist could erect a house of worship. They did, but they outgrew it in four decades. A new and larger church was erected at a new location. Three decades later, the congregation was ready to erect a full-scale cathedral. And that’s what they did. They erected a grand cathedral: beautiful, magnificent, awesome. In 1898, nearly 100 years after the congregation built its first house of worship – small and modest – and just two years after the grand cathedral was completed, the whole thing went up in flames. Poof! The determined congregation rebuilt the cathedral and it reopened on Christmas Eve, 1899. It did well for the next 100 years, but then it was closed for two years for major renovations. The renovations – $11 million worth – were completed in November. On the morning of 6 October, one Stuart Vincent Smith arrived at the cathedral. He seemed to be one of the many visitors that come to view the beautiful, magnificent, and awesome building. He picked up a brochure. He asked to use the men’s room. Then he entered the sanctuary and walked to the pulpit. He had a can of lighter fluid with him; he sprayed the fuel on the pulpit and a chair cushion and set them afire. When a docent tried to stop him, he produced a handgun. She screamed and ran. Reverend Douglas Clark saw what was happening on a security monitor, and he called the police.

Monsignor William O’Neill says he heard the docent’s scream, and he ran to the sanctuary to see what was happening. He says he saw the fire, and he rushed to put it out. Smith pointed the gun at O’Neill and told him to stop. O’Neill says he told Smith, “Don’t point that gun at me, or I’ll knock your head off!” And then he did what he could to extinguish the fire while Smith sat in a chair and watched.

Clark didn’t see it that way on the security monitor. Clark says that when O’Neill saw that Smith had a gun, he ran away, hid in a room, and left the fire unattended. Clark agrees that Smith just sat there and watched the fire until the police entered the sanctuary. They subdued Smith in short order. Then the fire department extinguished the fire, about 45 minutes after it began.

And why would Smith set fire to the pulpit and the cushion? Good question. During a preliminary hearing on 16 October, detective Armando Tamargo offered a reason. Tamargo interviewed Smith right after his arrest. He said Smith told him he wanted to burn the church because it symbolized organized religion, because he wanted to get people’s attention so he could express his views on organized religion.

The cathedral’s insurance company estimates that Smith’s attempt to get attention is going to cost it around $200,000. And what a waste. We still have no idea about Smith’s views on organized religion.

Joseph Isadore Lieberman – the quasi-orthodox Jewish candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination – was told by a whole bunch of people all at once that his brother is not a Muslim.

On 17 October, Lieberman addressed a mostly Muslim audience at the Arab American Institute in Dearborn, Michigan. Lieberman told the audience that Jews and Muslims are all related to one another: all descendants of the legendary Abraham.

“I am your brother,” he said. “Whatever differences we may have on the issues of the day are differences of ideas, not of religion or nationality.”

The audience didn’t buy it. Lieberman went on to say that Israel is a democracy and that the wall it’s erecting along the West Bank is just temporary. The audience didn’t buy that either. James Zogby – head of the Institute twice had to settle the audience so Lieberman could continue.

A week later and Lieberman was in Detroit for a debate amongst the Democratic presidential candidates. He again referred to all Jews and Muslims being related to one another. He said the hyphen in Arab-American is a “uniter” that should, “remind us we are all Americans and we are all children of the same god and children of the same father, Abraham. We are literally brothers and sisters.”

The news came on 14 October: the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Pledge of Allegiance case, the case in which a federal appeals court decided that it was unconstitutional to have public school teachers lead students in a pledge calling the U.S. “one nation under God.”

The Supreme Court might decide whether the ruling by the 9th Circuit court in the case of Newdow v. U.S. Congress was correct. Then again, the Supreme Court might not consider the ruling at all.

You can’t file a lawsuit unless you’ve got what’s called standing. What is standing? Let’s suppose you’re in church one Sunday – you’re having coffee and cake after the service – and you hear that the public library allows Internet access to porno sites. Yipes! Young school kids use that library; the library doesn’t carry Playboy magazine, and it shouldn’t allow access to playboy.com.

Can you file a lawsuit against the library? No, not as a concerned citizen. Why not? Because you aren’t suffering an injury. To have standing, you must suffer (or be about to suffer) some injury. Not some hypothetical injury, but some actual or imminent “invasion of a legally protected interest.”

Suppose you’ve got a child who frequents that library. Then you have standing. You can sue the library because you’re suffering an injury by virtue of your keen interest in your child’s upbringing. That’s how the courts see it.

Did Michael Newdow have standing to bring his suit? When his standing was first questioned, Newdow offered a bunch of reasons as to why he had standing. His chief reason was that, since he had a daughter in school, he regularly attended school board meetings. Those meetings began with the Pledge and Newdow says that made him – an atheist – feel like an outsider, someone who couldn’t join his fellow citizens in expressing allegiance to his country without affirming a religious belief he denies.

Another reason offered by Newdow was that his daughter attended public school, and daily recitation of the Pledge was interfering with his right to raise his daughter as he wished. By exposing the girl to a daily affirmation that she lives in a nation “under God,” the school was indoctrinating her with a religious belief. Based on that, the court decided Newdow had standing: he was the father of a child who attended a public school that required the Pledge each morning. As a result, the State was interfering with his right to control the religious upbringing of his daughter.

There are complications. Newdow never married the girl’s mother, and she has sole custody of the child. More than that, the mother is a Sunday school teacher and she says the girl is happy to say the Pledge; she says she doesn’t want her daughter to be known as the “the atheist child who drove the Pledge of Allegiance from public school.” And the mother asserts that Newdow is a miserable father: he once evicted the girl and her mother from the house they were living in.

Note: The girl’s mother – Sandra Banning – is being represented by none other than Kenneth Starr, famous for his pursuit of oral sex in the oval office. Also, this past September, a judge granted Newdow partial custody of the girl.

Ted Olsen, the U.S. Solicitor General petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the Newdow case. His petition claims that Newdow didn’t have standing to bring suit, that – even if Newdow did have standing – it’s obvious that the addition of “under God” to the Pledge doesn’t mean that the U.S. is a nation under God. Nope. It merely means that people used to think that it was.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief asking the court to send the whole matter back to the courts in California. Why? Because if the Supreme Court hears the case, then it decides an important issue of state law. The issue has to do with the rights of non-custodial parents (like Newdow). The girl’s mother wants the girl to go to school and recite the existing Pledge. Does Newdow’s right trump hers? The issue should be settled in state court. It wouldn’t be right for the Supreme Court to decide this issue before state courts have considered it.

Americans United asked the Supreme Court to ignore the Solicitor General’s petition. Why? Because the U.S. has no standing in the case. The 9th Circuit court’s original ruling said the act of Congress that added “under God” to the Pledge was unconstitutional, but its final ruling doesn’t address that act at all. What it says is that the California law requiring teachers to lead students in the Pledge is unconstitutional. It’s a question of state law that’s before the court, not federal law, so what interest (standing) does the U.S. have in this matter?

Another twist in the Newdow case has to do with Newdow’s ability to represent himself (to appear pro se). Turns out that Newdow hasn’t been a lawyer long enough to appear before the Supreme Court. The court could grant him a waiver and let him argue his own case, or it could rule that rules are rules and that’s that.

In that case, another lawyer gets to argue the case. Newdow’s said that when he appears in court, he plans to object to the court’s opening its sessions with the phrase, “God save the United States and this honorable court.” The court might prefer the case to be argued by someone less contentious.

Another hint that the high court won’t involve itself with the fundamental question raised by the Newdow case is that Justice Scalia has not participated in the case so far. If he stays out of it, that could (potentially) leave the court deadlocked: four justices voting in Newdow’s favor and four voting in the government’s favor. That would be messy.

The Associated Press reported that Scalia recused himself from the Newdow case, meaning he’ll take no part in it at all. But has Scalia recused himself? Who knows? He hasn’t said so, but he hasn’t participated in this case so far. For instance, he didn’t participate in the vote on whether to hear this case.

Newdow suggested that Scalia recuse himself from this case. Why? Because Newdow doesn’t believe that Scalia can be impartial. Why? Because Scalia expressed an opinion about the phrase “under God” in the Pledge (see Religion in the News: January 2003). At the Freedom Day celebration earlier this year – an annual celebration in honor of the Religious Freedom Bill that disestablished the Episcopal church in Virginia – Scalia suggested that whether the phrase remains in the Pledge is something that the public should decide, not the courts.

Scalia also expressed an opinion about the controversial phrase in the case of Lee v. Weisman decided in 1992. Mocking the court’s decision in that case, Scalia said that finding the Pledge unconstitutional “ought to be the next project for the Court’s bulldozer.”

More News about the Pledge

Paul Summers, Attorney General of Tennessee, decided that whatever happens with the Newdow case, the Pledge of Allegiance is safe in his state. Why? Because the Tennessee law that requires the Pledge to be recited in public schools doesn’t require anyone to participate. The law prohibits anyone from disrupting the Pledge, but it doesn’t say that anyone has to participate.

Summers’ reassuring remarks about the Tennessee law were inspired by the situation in Colorado. Last August, a federal judge put the brakes on a Colorado law requiring the Pledge in public schools. According to the judge, the problem with that law is that it only allows teachers to opt out of the Pledge if they have a religious objection. Students can opt out for any reason, but only if their parents agree. The Colorado legislature is expected to revise the law before the beginning of the next school year.

In New Mexico, a former high school student and her mother filed a lawsuit against Santa Fe High School as well as certain school employees and administrators, the police, and a juvenile detention officer. Their complaint alleges that the student was punished (given an 11-day suspension) for refusing to recite the Pledge. School officials say the student’s punishment had nothing to do with her refusal to recite the Pledge.

On 16 October, principals from three high schools in Craven County, North Carolina appeared at a meeting of the board of education to discuss the Pledge. North Carolina law doesn’t require the Pledge in public school, but it does encourage schools to provide students the opportunity to recite the Pledge on a regular basis.

During the meeting, a member of the school board said the Pledge should be said in high schools each morning. Currently, it’s not said in any of the county’s high schools. Also discussed was what to do with students who disrupt the Pledge, and what to do if students harass others who refuse to recite the Pledge? That’s what the high school principals wanted to know.

One school board member suggested that students who are disruptive during the Pledge should be disciplined just like students who are disruptive during class. The principal of Havelock High School, one of three high schools in the county, remarked that if a student was suspended for showing “total disrespect” during the Pledge, then the school might have a lawsuit on its hands. One board member remarked that schools can’t worry too much about what a few poorly-mannered students might do. Rules are rules, for one and all.

Danielle Wilson is a student at Havelock High School, and she’s certainly not the disruptive type. Wilson recently wrote an article about the Pledge for her high school newspaper. The article questioned why the Pledge wasn’t said in her school. A school board member ran across the article, and that’s what got the board of education to discuss the matter.

Rick Nelson, a Democrat and a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives, filed a resolution asking the Kentucky General Assembly to petition the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit’s ruling in the Newdow case. He didn’t bother to say what interest Kentucky has in California’s laws.

Just over a half century ago, a judge was dealing with a misguided youngster who had run into some trouble with the law (he was charged with reckless driving). The judge mentioned the Ten Commandments, and the 16-year-old boy responded in startling fashion: “What are they?” Shocked to the far side of belief, the judge made it a condition of the boy’s probation to memorize the ancient laws.

Hoping to prevent other youngsters from straying from right, the judge decided that copies of the ancient laws should be posted in public school classrooms. Kids would see them, and then they wouldn’t violate them (e.g., they wouldn’t drive in reckless fashion). The Fraternal Order of Eagles, a social organization founded in 1898 by some theatre owners in Seattle, heeded the judge’s call. They set about posting the ancient laws in classrooms across the nation. A few years later, the movement got grand when Cecil B. DeMille – the famed director who was preparing an epic movie about the ancient laws – saw a golden opportunity to promote his extravagant film. He’d crank out granite monuments with a custom version of the ancient laws, and the Eagles would arrange to have them displayed in public parks. In ten years time, thousands of the monuments rose up across the U.S. One of the monuments wound up in a park owned by the city of Casper, Wyoming. All was well and good. Fewer and fewer youngsters got in trouble with the law. But then Satan got involved (according to those who believe this could happen). Acting in the guise of Supreme Court justices, Satan ruled (in 1962) that requiring public school students to pray was unconstitutional. It ruled (in 1963) that subjecting public school students to daily bible lessons was unconstitutional. And it ruled (in 1980) that posting the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms was unconstitutional. The result? More and more youngsters got in trouble with the law. Fewer and fewer learned the ancient laws. Today, you can hardly find a public school student who can recite the ancient laws. It’s gotten so bad that you can hardly find a soul who can tell you which of the ancient laws prohibits reckless driving!

Satan is hardly done with its work and its attack on the nation under Yahweh (the U.S., not Israel). It recently showed up in Casper, Wyoming, focusing its fury on the very monument that stood there to promote a movie to promote ancient laws to promote good living, a monument beloved by people in that town who haven’t given up the fight for right. It showed up in the guise of one Reverend Fred Phelps, pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.

Here’s the deal: In 1965, the Eagles gave Casper a monument to the ancient laws, and the monument has been sitting in the park ever since. On 15 September 2003, Annie Laurie Gaylor, editor of Freethought Today, a newsletter published by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, sent a letter to the Mayor of Casper asking that the “Protestant version” of the monument be removed since it was “illegally located in a public-supported city park.” As motivation, Gaylor referenced a ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Last year, the 10th Circuit court ruled that, if a city allows monuments honoring one religion, it cannot prohibit monuments honoring other religions. The ruling was from the case of Summum v. Ogden.

In 1966, the city of Ogden, Utah accepted a monument to the ancient laws from the Eagles. It placed the monument on the lawn outside the city’s municipal building. Some thirty years later, followers of the Summum religion asked the city to remove the monument. The city refused, and so the followers of Summum proposed that the city allow another monument – a monument bearing the Seven Principles of the Summum religion – to be placed near the monument donated by the Eagles. Again, the city refused. The followers of Summum filed suit, and the 10th Circuit ruled in their favor.

In short, if a city is going to allow monuments favored by Protestants (or Jews or Catholics), then it cannot disallow monuments favored by Summums (or Rastafarians or Zoroastrians). That’s what Gaylor was referring to in her letter to the mayor of Casper.

What to do? Satan (often acting in the guise of the ACLU) has had great success in getting rid of monuments to the ancient laws, in keeping them hidden from school children. But Satan doesn’t always win. It can be thwarted.

Just two years ago, the ACLU sued the city of Grand Junction, Colorado over a monument to the ancient laws. In the first round, the ACLU won. But then the leaders in Grand Junction got smart. They camouflaged their monument by putting some other monuments around it: monuments of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Magna Carta, and the Mayflower Compact. When round two was over, the evil force was defeated.

Casper plans to follow Grand Junction’s lead. On 28 October, the city council voted to move the monument to a plaza and camouflage it with other monuments. That should settle things, right?

Maybe not. Satan’s resourceful, and it threw a potential wrench into the mix. Just two weeks after Mayor Preyam received Gaylor’s letter, she received a letter from Reverend Phelps about the monument in the park. The letter demanded that another monument be placed alongside the existing monument.

Phelps is well known in Casper. He visits the city every October. Why? Because of Matthew Shepard. You might recall that on 12 October 1998, Shepard – a student at the University of Wyoming, a homosexual who was born and raised in Casper – died after he was beaten and left tied to a fence in the freezing cold.

The story is that Shepard was in a bar, looking for a good time. Two men met Shepard. They made believe they were like him: they’d rather screw men than women. The three had a fun time, and then they drove from the bar together. The speculation is that Shepard expected a sexual encounter. What he got was a severe beating, and then he was left tied to a fence in the freezing cold for the better part of an entire day. A woman driving by noticed him; she called the police; when they got to him, he was just about dead. He stayed in a coma for days, and then he died.

According to Phelps, Shepard didn’t even deserve to live. A sodomite, Shepard was unwelcome in this land full of monuments to ancient laws, laws that made it clear: the penalty for one man making love to another is death. Not some figurative death in another world: death, here and now. A conscious death, the sort of death that Matthew Shepard experienced: harsh, and brutal: fueled by hatred, ignorance, and fear.

God hates homosexuals. That’s what Phelps preaches. God hates sodomites and fornicators and adulterers. Such perverts will spend eternity in hell. To get to heaven, you’ve got to follow God’s commandments: all of them, including the commandment in Leviticus 20:13: “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.”

Phelps and his followers (mostly relatives) travel the country condemning a society that is becoming more and more accepting of homosexuals. They protest at schools with homosexual teachers. They protest at courts that fail to punish homosexuals. They show up at city council meetings to protest laws granting rights to homosexuals. They show up at Gay Pride parades to condemn the perverted participants. They show up at funerals of homosexuals to remind everyone that God hates them. They showed up at Matthew Shepard’s funeral carrying signs bearing the slogan God Hates Fags.

Phelps’ letter said that his church wanted to erect a monument to Matthew Shepard next to the existing monument. The new monument would carry this inscription: “Matthew Shepard entered hell October 12, 1998, at age 21 in defiance of God’s warning: ‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.’ Leviticus 18:22.” The letter, referring to the 10th Circuit court’s ruling in Summum v. Ogden, said the city must allow the monument.

On 28 October, the city council of Casper voted to move the existing monument to a new location, a plaza that will contain the monument and monuments to other historic documents. Both Gaylor and Phelps plan to continue the fight. According to Gaylor, so long as the city displays the existing monument, it has no choice but to allow Phelps’ monument. We’ll see.

Reverend Phelps’ group also plans to protest the Episcopal church’s ceremony to make Reverend Vicki Gene Robinson a bishop on 2 November. At the church’s general convention this past August, Robinson was elected to become the Bishop of New Hampshire. The news caused quite a stir since Robinson is a homosexual who has a ‘partner.’

On 7 through 9 October, the American Anglican Council met in Dallas, Texas to discuss the general convention. The meeting produced a document titled A Place to Stand; A Call to Action. The document criticizes Robinson’s election. It also criticizes the church’s recognition of homosexual marriages, another outcome of the general convention. The document demands that the leadership of the church ‘repent.’

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the world-wide Anglican church, called a special meeting of church leaders to discuss these issues that threaten to break the church in two. The meeting was held on 15 and 16 October. It concluded with a call for further study.

The church has been considering ordination of homosexuals for the past several decades, and the issue is divisive. On the one hand, there are the conservatives, traditionalists who say the Bible is clear on the subject: homosexual behavior is sinful behavior. And then there are the liberals, the reformers who deny that homosexuality is sinful. Homosexuals are simply different from heterosexuals: no better; no worse.

Note: According to the church, it’s a sin to have sexual relations except with your wife or your husband. Robinson’s partner is neither his wife nor his husband, so the church has made a bishop of someone ‘living in sin.’ What’s next? A lesbian bishop presiding over the marriage of two men?

Robinson becomes bishop on Sunday, 2 November in a ceremony at New Hampshire University. Until then, he’s being protected by FBI agents since he’s received so many death threats. Traditionalists will be offered a platform at the ceremony when this question is posed: “If any of you know any reason why we should not proceed, let it be made known.” More than likely, someone will have something to say.

More News about Posting Ancient Laws in Public

The Ten Commandments made news around the country in October. In addition to events in Casper, Wyoming, there were these other developments:

1. In DeKalb County, Tennessee, there’s a new exhibit at the county courthouse. It’s an exhibit of historic documents, and one of the documents is a list of the ancient laws. Kyle Williams, a title researcher, noticed the Ten Commandments among the documents and so he filed a complaint to get them removed. Jeff McMillan, the county’s register of deeds and the man who put the exhibit together had this to say: “I was just telling him [Williams] like it is: You come to DeKalb County and you start messing with something or other and there’s gonna be somebody on your back before you leave if you’re not real careful.”

2. Roger Jones, mayor of Greenville County, Tennessee has a copy of the Ten Commandments posted in his office. He’s asked the heads of all 95 counties in the state to proclaim “God as the foundation of our national heritage.”

3. In Rupert, Idaho, the American Legion post wants to buy a small chunk of the Minidoka County Courthouse lawn so it can erect a Ten Commandments monument (to get around the idea that the monument is on public property). State law requires that if the land is sold, then the sale must be advertised and the land sold to the highest bidder. A county commissioner raised the spectre of someone buying the land and then putting up a less-than-welcome monument.

4. On 6 October, the commissioners of Jackson County, Georgia voted in favor of a display of historical documents (including the Ten Commandments) in their administrative building in Jefferson.

5. On 9 October, a rally was held outside the Habersham County Courthouse in Clarkesville, Georgia. The rally – attended by several hundred people, despite inclement weather – was in support of keeping the Ten Commandments posted in the county courthouse. The keynote speaker at the rally was Dr. Rick Scarborough, an evangelist. He told the crowd that “enough is enough.” The federal courts had better stop telling people that it’s illegal to post the Ten Commandments in public buildings.

6. On 20 October, U.S. District Judge William O’Kelley heard arguments about the posting of the ancient laws in the Habersham County Courthouse. The action to remove the Ten Commandments was brought by a local fireman and the pastor of a Baptist church. The commandments are displayed along with such historic documents as the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.

7. On 21 October, congressional representatives from Florida and Alabama introduced a bill that would require the posting of the Ten Commandments in the U.S. Capitol building. One sponsor of the bill had this to say: “All societies and all civilizations are in some way based on the Ten Commandments.” He added: “You can find it in different world religions. And the cornerstone of the Constitution is the Ten Commandments.”

8. Barrow County, Georgia is looking for an attorney to defend the county’s Ten Commandments display. Last September, the ACLU filed suit to have the display removed from the Barrow County Courthouse. The pastor of a Baptist church in the county is forming a nonprofit corporation to raise money to defend the display. He says, “we have urgent needs of $300,000 in donations,” and, “we expect our total needs to be close to $2 million when all is said and done.”

9. There was a rally in Jackson County, Georgia in support of the Ten Commandments. The ancient laws were posted in the county administration building to protest the lawsuits threatening such displays in Habersham and Barrow counties.

10. Alabama Education Association conducted a poll of Alabama voters. Three-quarters of those polled said the Ten Commandments should be displayed in public. Only one in five disagreed. The poll also showed that over half of those polled felt that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore should have obeyed the court order to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial building. One third said he was right to defy the federal court order. Asked if they would vote for Moore if he ran for governor of Alabama, half said they wouldn’t; one third said they would.

11. Recent polls show that the overwhelming majority of Yanks think the Ten Commandments should be posted in government buildings, in courthouses, and in classrooms. Tim Bucey of the Springfield News-Sun (Springfield, Ohio) decided to conduct an informal poll. How many who want these laws posted in public have them posted in their homes? What Bucey found was that people who clamor to see the commandments posted in public usually don’t bother to post them in private (at home or at work). He found that Christian schools in Springfield didn’t bother to post the commandments, and neither did many churches.

12. The suspended Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court – Judge Roy Moore – was on the move. On 24 and 25 October, he was keynote speaker at a conference titled Reclaiming America for Christ. Moore said that because of court rulings against the public display of the Ten Commandments, “we’ve wandered in sin and destruction. We’re denying the very source of our morality.”

13. On 6 October, the Save the Commandments Caravan reached its final destination: the U.S. Supreme Court. The caravan – to protest a federal judge’s order that a monument of the Ten Commandments be removed from the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial building – began in Montgomery, Alabama on 28 September. When it arrived at the Supreme Court building, thousands rallied to urge the high court to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public. One of the featured speakers – Sandy Rios of Concerned Women for America – said that removing the Ten Commandments from public school classrooms has had terrible consequences for the country. Another speaker – Reverend Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition – said, “the very future and survival of our nation” is in jeapordy. “How can a U.S. district federal judge tell Chief Justice Roy Moore to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama judicial building when the Supreme Court is closing today for Yom Kippur?” he asked.

14. Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes showed up Lufkin, Texas to speak at a rally protesting the removal of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial. The rally attracted over 2,000 people, according to the Associated Press. Also on hand was evangelist Rick Scarborough. Scarborough told the Lufkin Daily News how the town was selected for the rally: “There’s no better place in America where everyday folk have the heart for what is right and will know when something is amiss.”

It happened again, this time in Luling, Texas. Four cross-country runners from Luling High School were half-way through their regular, early morning, two-mile run on Saturday, 11 October. They must have had a premonition or something, because they stopped to pray. While they were praying along the side of the highway (U.S. Route 90), a car came along and hit them. One of the runners was killed; another was hospitalized. Just one more incident testifying to the terrifying power of prayer.

October was a banner month for religious holidays. Hindus, Jains, and Sikhs celebrated Diwali, the Festival of Lights. To celebrate, everyone lights small oil lamps around their homes. People go shopping. They wear new clothes and jewelry. Adults gamble and children set off sparklers and firecrackers. Families visit relatives and everyone exchanges gifts and home-made candies. It’s a festive occasion.

What’s to celebrate? There are several legends, each involving the concept of Good against Evil. First, there’s the defeat of the demon Naraka. Naraka was being punished, and at the end of his punishment, Lord Brahma blessed him. The blessing gave Naraka immense power and he started a reign of terror over the Celestial Beings.

The Beings pleaded with Lord Krishna to destroy Naraka. There was one big problem though: Naraka could only be killed by his mother. Krishna’s very smart, and he came up with a plan. He asked his wife – Satyabhama – to drive his chariot while he battled the demon. It just so happens that Krishna’s wife is an incarnation of Naraka’s mother. During the battle, Krishna made believe he’d been killed. Naraka relaxed his guard, and then Satyabhama shot him with an arrow and killed him.

Another legend has it that the goddess Lakshmi was in such grief that the universe started to malfunction. The source of her grief? It seems that Lord Vishnu had granted a wish to the demon king Bali. Bali wished for Vishnu to guard Bali’s palace. That’s the source of Lakshmi’s grief: her separation from Vishnu. Seeing the effect her grief was having on the universe, Brahma and Lord Shiva pleaded with Bali: let Vishnu go and we’ll guard your palace. Bali let Vishnu go, and – on the second day of Diwali – Lakshmi was delighted by Vishnu’s return. Legend holds that those who honor Lakshmi on this day will be blessed with good fortune in the coming year.

Another legend central to Diwali has to do with Lord Ram. The holiday is said to commemorate Ram’s return from 14 years of exile. Ram, an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, was sent into exile for killing Ravan, a demon king. When Ram returned, the people lit oil lamps and set off fireworks in celebration.

Birth of the Bab

On 20 October, Bahais around the world celebrated the birthday of Siyyid Ali Muhammad. Also known as the Bab, Ali was born in Persia in 1819. Both of his parents were descendants of the founder of Islam.

Scholars say there are lots of parallels between the story of the Bab and the story of John the Baptist. John told of the coming Messiah; the Bab told of the coming of Bahaullah, whom the Bahai’s consider to be a manifestation of the one God. The Bab told people to get ready for the coming of “him whom God shall make manifest.” John referred to Jesus as one “the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.” John became the first martyr to Christ, and the Bab became the first martyr to Bahaullah.

And then there are the similarities between the stories of Bab and of Jesus. When they were young, they both displayed an understanding of scripture that was beyond belief. They both condemned corruption in society. Their chief antagonists were religious authorities. Both were taken before the authorities and interrogated. Both went through the streets of the cities where they were to be killed, first in triumph then in defeat. Both were executed in public. At their executions, they both spoke words of comfort to others being executed with them.

Samhain

Another festive holiday that took place in October was Halloween. The origins of the holiday are in dispute. It’s widely believed to have originated as Samhain, a holiday celebrated by the ancient Celts. Some hold that it was the Celtic new year, a time to celebrate the year’s harvest. Others say the Celts believed that spirits of those who died during the past year would use the day to find new bodies to possess among the living. They say the holiday was originally an effort to ward off those spirits.

However it started, it was altered by Christianity. During the so-called Dark Ages, the church in Rome was doing what it could to eradicate paganism. A part of that campaign was to Christianize pagan holidays wherever possible: toss their pagan roots and give them new ones that jived with Christian beliefs.

It was the year 609, and Pope Boniface IV accepted a gift from Emperor Phocas. The gift was the Pantheon, a temple that had been dedicated to some pagan gods. The pope made the day (May 13) a holiday to honor Christian saints. Just over 100 years later, Pope Gregory III changed it from a holiday honoring known saints to a holiday honoring all saints. Another 100 years after that, Pope Gregory IV moved All Saints Day from the first Sunday after Pentecost to the first day in November. Why? So he could transform the old Celtic holiday on the last day of October into a Christian holiday. It was called the evening of All Hallows (Saints) Day. Over time, it became Halloween.

Somber Holidays

Not all of October’s religious holidays were festive. Consider Ramadan, which began with the first sighting of the new moon towards the end of the month. Ramadan goes on for a whole month, and during that time Muslims are forbidden to eat or drink, to smoke or have sex during daylight hours. They are encouraged to study the Koran and to pray.

Several Jewish holidays occurred during October. Yom Kippur – the Sabbath of Sabbaths, the Day of Atonement – occurred on 6 October. Like Ramadan, Yom Kippur imposes restrictions. Those who celebrate the holiday are forbidden to eat or drink, bathe, have sex, or wear shoes made of leather.

The Festival of Sukhot began on 11 Octboer. The seven-day holiday – also known as the Season of our Rejoicing – is to honor those ancients who are believed to have spent 40 years wandering in the wilderness before they discovered the land that had been promised to them. (Moses wasn’t known for his skills as a navigator.) During this holiday, Jews are expected to live in (or, at least, have their meals in) temporary shelters in honor of those ancients who went without permanent homes for 40 years.

A clique of fanatic Muslims attacks the U.S. The U.S. is stunned. Much of the world is shocked. Some of the world figures it’s just a matter of the chickens come home to roost. The evening news shows Arabs dancing in the streets in glee, adults handing candy to children in celebration of the joyous occasion. Sober people throughout the world find the images disgusting.

The Commander in Chief comes out of hiding and calls for a Crusade. Those people dancing in the street are outraged, and the president’s aides tell him he might want to come up with a less offensive term. So, it becomes a War on Terrorism. The president tries to reassure Muslims. He says Islam is a religion of peace. Of course, Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham and Jerry Fallwell and a host of evangelicals say otherwise: Muslims have a religious obligation to kill Christians and Jews; Islam is a wicked religion; Muhammad was a terrorist.

Evangelicals are free to say what they will. They’re free to disagree with the president all they want. Soldiers are not: not when they’re in uniform. When they’re in uniform and they’re speaking to an audience and the cameras and recorders are capturing the sights and the sounds, they’re best off following this sober advice: “don’t talk about sex, religion, or politics.”

As was so widely reported in October, U.S. Army Major General William Boykin doesn’t follow sober advice; he’s happy to don his uniform and yak about his religious beliefs; he’s happy to make public statements at odds with the president’s. The president says this is not a religious war. The general says it is. It is a war between religions; it is a war between our god and theirs.

So . . . you’d think the General would be in some deep shit contradicting the president, right? Wrong. Neither the president, nor the secretary of defense, nor the secretary of the army, nor the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff – not a one of his superiors – tells him to shut up. Quite the contrary. The secretary of defense gives the general a promotion and Congress approves it. Boykin becomes the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, a new position that makes the general the army’s point man in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

For years, Boykin’s preaching in uniform goes unchallenged. Then, all of a sudden, one William Arkin – a columnist for the Los Angeles Times and a commentator for MSNBC – gets a tip (and videotapes of some of Boykin’s speeches) from one of those career types at the Pentagon, someone who isn’t happy about the general’s recent promotion. On 15 October, the NBC evening news airs selected portions of the videotapes. The next day, the Los Angeles Times runs a story about the general’s preaching and carries a stinging op-ed piece written by Arkin.

What’s so fascinating about the general’s preaching? It’s not just that he does it uniform, or that he’s spending time preaching instead of doing his job, or that he’s contradicting the president, or that his superiors don’t seem to care; according to Arkin, what’s so fascinating is that Boykin is not only disparaging Islam, he’s saying things that could make reasonable people wonder about his mental state.

Boykin tells audiences that Osama bin Laden is not our enemy. No, our enemy is a demon who hates the U.S. because our country is favored by God. Our enemy can only be defeated if we fight in the name of Jesus. We’re not battling terrorists; we’re fighting something called the Principality of Darkness. He tells his soldiers that if they die in battle, they’ll go to heaven. He says George Bush wasn’t elected president; he was appointed by God. He says the god of Christians is bigger than the god of Muslims; in fact, the god of Muslims isn’t even a god; it’s just an idol.

Speaking before a congregation of the faithful, the general displays aerial photographs of Mogadishu, Somalia. He says he examined the photographs and found something out of the ordinary in them, a strange dark mark over the city. He pointed it out to the congregation and told them, “It is a demonic presence in that city that God revealed to me as the enemy.”

Wow! Is Boykin saying what the president really thinks, but doesn’t dare say?

_________________________________________

Click here for the PDF version this edition.

Click here for other editions of Religion in the News.

About the Author: Mister Thorne is a mathematics editor living in San Francisco. For information about him, visit www.misterthorne.org. To contact him, send e-mail to lyricalreckoner@yahoo.com.