INTERESTING TIMES

 ​ "Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the president cannot pardon himself," the Department of Justice declared in 1974. The DOJ spelled it out just four days before Nixon resigned, explaining that the president's pardoning power "does not extend to the president himself." 

This is the after-elementary-school program being offered by an organization called The Satanic Temple.   It was news to me, but the Satanists I met tonight at the FFRF meeting consider themselves to be atheists.  They do not believe in a metaphysical God or Satan.  Satan instead is a symbol of individual liberty, of the ability we each have to say "I'm out" when someone offers us a load of dogma.  Lucifer, of course, is the fallen angel in Christian mythology who refused to tow the line.  "...Our metaphor of Satan is a literary construct inspired by authors such as Anatole France and Milton--a rebel angel defiant of autocratic structure and concerned with the material world. Satanism as a rejection of superstitious supernaturalism."

This take on Satan is all fine and good if you're inside that particular literary bubble.  If you, like me, grew up surrounded by Christian mythology, Satan is THE bad guy.  So I was a bit taken aback that they want to call their program this, and their club, and so on.  Why choose such a hot button for Christians?  Why not call it after school Humanism, or Atheism, or Evolution???  Well they do have a reason.  The concept is that Satanists can assert their rights as a religious organization and influence public affairs, reminding the dominant religious groups that in America such privileges are for all religions, not just the chosen ones.

I also learned that the legal definition of a religious organization is one that takes a stand about god.  Hence an atheist organization is a religious organization in the good old US of A.

The Oregon chapter of The Satanic Temple is brand new.  They've offered After School Satan Clubs at two elementary schools where Good News Clubs are already offered.  They plan to teach evolution, and how the world was formed.  The only problem is that when the local chaper offered an open house at a local school, the superintendent of the school (Karen Gray) let all the students and teachers go home an hour early, effectively eliminating the curious audience while also ticking off the parents who had to get out of work an hour early to pick up their babies.  Only two students signed up.  I wonder how many would have signed up if it was the After School Spaghettimonster Club?

The 2001 Supreme Court Decision called Good News Club vs Milford Central School resulted in a decision that the Milford school's restriction of the Good News Club violated the Club's free speech rights, and that no Establishment Clause concern justified that violation.  If you don't remember the Establishment Clause, it's the part of the First (free speech) Amendment that prohibits the establishment of religion by Congress.  So after school programs are allowed access to school premises regardless of content.  Free speech is allowed by religious groups as well as boy scouts, debate and chess club...and Corporations, but that's a separate ball of wax.

The Good News Club is a private Christian organization for children.  Their goal is to Christianize the next generation.  They teach elementary school kids that they are sinners and that they are going to hell if they don't repent and do right by this one particular version of God.  The Child Evangelism Fellowship creates the curriculum and trains instructors.  They have over 40,000 volunteers in the US and in 2011 there were 3560 clubs in public schools in the US and over 42,000 clubs worldwide.  THIS is how they get off calling it a Christian Nation.  And they are effectively brainwashing children before they've developed the powers of discimination to know they've been hoodwinked.    A 5th grader is unlikely to really comprehend that the teachings after school are of a different nature from the teachings in school.

Because of the 2001 SCOTUS decision, Satanists have the same rights of access to public schools as Christians, so After School Satan is one answer to the Christianization.  The name is intended to provoke Christians, and it does.  There have been ample protests.  The goal is simple: to get the Christians to remove their programs from public schools, so that then the Satanists will go back into private and stop enticing their children with cool programs and rebelliousness.

One of the coolest things I heard from tonight's programs was the 7 Tenets of The Satanic Temple.  They are beautifully enlightened so I will share:

I. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.

II. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

III. One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

IV. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.

V. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.

VI. People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.

VII. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

Wouldn't it be nice if THESE were American Values?

It's not really a word, rather a phrase, but has a meaning distinct from its relative "de facto" which means existing without legal authority.  I presume is it Latin.  Pro facto is literally translated as "for the fact", but it rather means considering or assuming a stated proposition as if it were fact.  As if.  That is to say, in doing so you realize that there is uncertainty, but you go with the best explanation until there is a challenge.  Ruiz would suggest that we ought to avoid assumptions, and just admit to not knowing.  But the world is much easier to manage when you have a framework for it.

What provoked me to look this up is the fact that the organization known as Oregonians for Science and Reason has a newletter by that name.  What exactly did they mean whean choosing that title?  That they were admitting that we are going with a working understanding of things that is subject to challenge, perhaps?

Please correct me if I have the shades of meaning wrong.  Gracias.

I'm happy to read that California colleges are adopting this new standard which says that in order to not be rape, sexual interaction may occur when both partners are conscious and actively consenting. I hope that this new standard is widely adopted and eventually becomes law for the nation, not just a few colleges.

My partner points out that it does not remove the possibility of a "he said she said" standoff in court, and this is true. It requires education, so that everyone knows that it is the standard, and support such that all persons feel empowered to say "no" when they want to.

What this standard does, in my mind at least, is raise the bar ever so slightly for aggressors seeking sex. It removes the defense "She didn't say no" from play. I have been appalled to see that a raped woman cannot get justice unless she gets hurt. If she is not injured, and does not have ejaculate on her, then the court could find "no evidence" that she was raped. Requiring that a woman be injured or that there be witnesses who heard her screaming "no" before you believe that she was raped is a terrible baseline, but in practicality it plays out this way. This is why even in our supposedly open culture most raped women do not seek legal recourse. It's not worth it.

I would like to believe that a good lawyer or judge can elicit signs of the truth from a person even when they are trying to hide it. I would like to think that attentive jurors will instinctively know when someone is lying. Perhaps I am too idealistic about our court system, and it malfunctions more than it functions.

There's nothing direct or simple about the way sexuality plays out in our culture and legal system. Messy is more the word for it. Within a relationship that has been sexual in the past, men do take advantage, and women do submit in order to not be hurt. That submission is not consent. For young men who have no partner, the situation is worse. I have read that many young American men today are angry at women because they cannot get the sex they want. One such young man took up a gun to express his anger. Intense desire is normal, but such anger is dangerous. Modern youth partake of online porn that gives them an unrealistic view of sex and does not educate them on the delicacies of dating or seduction. It is an unhealthy situation, and this standard does nothing to resolve it. Who is going to teach the young people how to talk to each other, to be respectful, and to flirt gracefully? I do not know. I only know that the social structures that used to educate us about proper mating behavior have fallen apart, and nothing has taken their place.

At least here raped women are not stoned to death, though I can comprehend how this would be better for the males in a patriarchal system. She can't complain if she's dead. At least in colleges in California, "yes means yes" is an excellent new dividing line between consent and submission or worse.

I read today about the California prisoners who've gone without food for 45 days now to protest the practice of keeping people on solitary for a year or more. A judge decided that the prisons can force feed them. This is barbarism. Their rationale is that some of the fasting prisoners have been mislead. I almost expect to hear the Shrubism: "wrongheaded" applied to the prisoners. But it is our practices of incarceration that are wrong.

First of all, it is entirely inhumane to keep any person locked away in solitary for any time at all. We are not designed to be all alone, and left all alone for too long almost any human will loose their mind. A whole year in isolation is enough to make a very sane and functional person completely mad. It is very reasonable for prisoners to protest against this practice with every tool they have.

Second of all, even prisoners should have the right to refuse food if they want to. Everyone should have the right even to end their life if they so choose, especially adults. After all, if a person cannot decide what to do with their life, is it their life at all? This kind of prison practice makes capital punishment look humane.

This engineer (ironically named Mix) knew that the 4/20/10 BP oil geyser was bigger than the company had told the media, and they're arresting him for deleting 300 text messages on that subject. Not to be totally uppity but I KNEW at the time that the guesstimated amount was likely to be false and low. Anybody with half a brain knew the number was not likely to be the eventual truth. They just picked a nice round number and were sticking to it. It sorta sickens me to see an engineer go down for this. Somebody higher on the food chain is more responsible, and for more heinous crimes.

READ ALL ABOUT IT
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/justice-dept-makes-1st-arrest-in-bp-oil-spill-ex-engineer-accused-of-obstruction-of-justice/2012/04/24/gIQAOuKieT_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboNE_b

I'm not sure how they figured that I'm "pro-family". Probably because I support Ron Paul. Contrary to their assumption, I am capable of appreciating his positions without being a social conservative. The message behind the cut is stimulated by the Student Nondiscrimination Act which is before congress. They claim that this will be the last straw causing our descent into the vice of promiscuous sex, by way of indoctrinating our youth in "pro-homosexual" values from kindergarten on. I don't know about this being a significant law in the great scope of our cultural slide, but the writer is correct in his panic that all will be lost. What he does not see is that the new thing which arises from the ashes may well be an improvement. My personal position on homosexuality is as follows: May all people love who they love, no matter. Now, on to the ridiculous slant of this email:

Dear pro-family American,

The Radical Homosexuals infiltrating the United States Congress have a plan:
( behind the cut is the text of today's anti-homo spam email )

The idea behind the bill is to make sure that the women are aware of the gestational age and viability of the fetus before they are permitted to abort it. It passed, but they dropped the requirement for the transvaginal ultrasound, instead requiring that the women submit to the procedure to the exterior of their abdomens. It would be difficult to pass a law saying a woman must submit to imaging that requires invasion of a body cavity, even if it is the best way to visualize the fetus. The Republicans said that a woman has "a right to know" about the fetus. I wonder, does a woman have a right to remain ignorant?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/va-senate-approves-contentious-ultrasound-bill/2012/02/27/gIQAvhiVgR_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboNP